What Have We Created?!

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Leslie082858 @ 10/27/2008 1:11:43 PM

    A History Lesson

    In the late 1950's, most Cubans thought Cuba needed "a change" and they were right.

    So when a young, dynamic leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive. When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. He said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, and everyone followed. He said he would bring justice and equality to all, and everyone said "Praise the Lord!"

    The young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," and everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!" But by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.

    By the time "the change" was finally implemented. Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.

    By the time the change was over. more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.

    Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, "what change?"

    Would we?

    MCCAIN-PALIN 2008

    • Posted By: sqrtnegone @ 10/27/2008 3:36:03 PM

      You are leaving out a large part of the history; it's called cherry picking. Cuba did not degenerate to the point that is due only to Castro's policies. They failed because of the fact that the US decided to punish them economically, and bullied other countries into doing the same. Why is it OK to deal with China and Vietnam, but not with Cuba? Had Cuba been allowed to prosper economically they might have evolved politically as well.

      • Posted By: torresc @ 10/27/2008 5:03:20 PM

        You are wrong. First of all the only place that Cuba does not deal with is the US. Cuba still trades with many countries that pay no attention to what the US does. Cuba still trades with Russia, many Countries in Europe, Central America and South America. Before you make any comments like yours I would at least get the opinion from people that lived in Cuba. Why don't you try to ask the people of Venezuela what Chavez also promised them? Warning you are not going to like their answer.

        • Posted By: sqrtnegone @ 10/28/2008 10:56:05 AM

          Calling me wrong doesn't strengthen your argument. Initially only the USSR would deal with Cuba. Over the years more countries have realized the error in US policy towards Cuba, but there is still a lot of economic ground to make up. The US is still punishing the Cuban people to spite Castro, end of story.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 2:42:38 PM

      Your side has had its chance. It failed.

      It's high time the republicans spent a term or three in the wilderness, to get their act together.

      See you in 2020.

      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:54:34 PM

        More like 2012. When the voters realize what a horrible mistake they have made.

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 1:14:52 PM

      Same with Lenin in Russia.

      • Posted By: shell242 @ 10/27/2008 1:22:02 PM

        Beautiful analogy...We need more people down here in Miami to read this...

  • Posted By: myxytptlk @ 10/27/2008 2:00:45 PM

    Is it my imagination or is there a palpable shift in comments being posted (in almost all blogs everywhere) that seems like the anti-Obama contingent is reconciled to losing the election ?

    • Posted By: Brammy @ 10/27/2008 2:09:55 PM

      Lets hope so. I am so tired of the hatred and lies. Can't wait for this election to be over... no matter who wins

      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:30:56 PM

        Do you mean the hatred like the Sarah Palin lookalike hanging from a tree in a West Hollywood neighborhood. That kinda hate.

        • Posted By: sqrtnegone @ 10/27/2008 3:23:46 PM

          No, we mean the hatred like calling Obama a Muslim (what's wrong with being a Muslim), calling Michelle his 'baby mamma', yelling things like "communist", "socialist", "terrorist" or "kill him", making an 'Obama buck' with pictures of fried chicken, watermelon and ribs on it. I guess what I am saying is the hatred like that of the GOP.

          • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:31:17 PM

            Oh calling someone a muslim is bad but hanging someone's image is ok. Calling for Sarah Palin to be murdered or raped, as well as her children to be called vile names or calling for them to be harmed I guess no big deal. Don't you all get it - it is all wrong.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 3:34:31 PM

              It's bad if it's a lie.

              Also, I'd like to see a link to this alleged hanging of Palin in effigy. So far you have no credibility, so I'm calling you out on this one.

              I'm not holding my breath, of course.

              • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 4:12:49 PM

                Also check out obamaoursavior.blogspot.com - this is a collection of just lovely post that show what I am talking about. And as far as having credibility I say your the one who is lacking in credibility. You call anyone who says anything you don't like a liar. How original.

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 5:15:06 PM

                  And you didn't? HAR HAR! How'd you like that link about McCain and ACORN? Or did that "bore" you, too?

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 5:33:24 PM

                    Actually it did. I found it rather stupid. But I am glad you liked it so much.

                    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/28/2008 9:59:28 AM

                      Of course you found it stupid...it proved you wrong.

                      So you resort to the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy.

              • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 4:04:42 PM

                Are you holding your breath? You can now let it out - cbs2.com, it is an associated press story. Bye now

        • Posted By: sqrtnegone @ 10/27/2008 3:36:56 PM

          No, we mean the hatred like calling Obama a Muslim (what's wrong with being a Muslim), calling Michelle his 'baby mamma', yelling things like "communist", "socialist", "terrorist" or "kill him", making an 'Obama buck' with pictures of fried chicken, watermelon and ribs on it. I guess what I am saying is the hatred like that of the GOP.

    • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 3:09:39 PM

      I am actually only concerned that who wins, regardless of who it is, will have such a mess to deal with that they won't be able to get anything done that is proactive, but just reactive to stave off entropy.

    • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/27/2008 2:02:36 PM

      Its your imagination.

  • Posted By: a brighter America 08 @ 10/27/2008 2:34:33 PM

    What many of your McCain supporters seem to not comprehend is that many, many big businesses do NOT pay any taxes at all because of all the LOOPHOLES provided to them. By the time they deduct all their employee and business expenses and apply these other deep loopholes, they end up paying ZERO taxes, and that is how many of them can afford to pay their CEOs millions of dollars annually. When big businesses operate this way, there is NO "trickle down" effect. It is the middle-class that keep these big companies in business, without us, they would go BROKE!! Everyone MUST pay takes in proportion to their earnings. Why should you, making $35K a year pay 28% of your income for taxes? While someone making billions a year pay ONLY 7% more?? BUT, when the use those deep loopholes they pay zip, zero, nada in taxes! Come on folks, You are not doing your reseach!

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:43:23 PM

      Oh and without you they would go broke, well without them you would have no job and no income. Try having a little respect. We have a small business and we know better than buying the junk your pushing!

      • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 2:59:07 PM

        Respect? Excuse me? The original poster is correct. Without middle class consumers small business suffer. And yes, there are many BIG BUSINESS (notice BIG) that do not pay taxes due to loopholes. I find it disgusting and very UNpatriotic for corporations and thriving business owners to make money off of U.S. consumers while not contributing to gov't programs. If you prosper in America, you should have no problem giving back to America.

        Obama doesn't intend to raise taxes on the highest 5% or wage earners and businesses any more than what they paid during the Clinton era. And like it or not, we were better off then.

        SO IF YOU ARE TOO SELFISH TO PAY YOUR TAXES THEN LEAVE. GO MAKE YOUR BUCK ELSEWHERE.

        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:04:10 PM

          If you are too lazy to earn your own money. Leave. America has always been about hard-working people. Free loaders are not what made this country strong. This attitude is a new phenomena brought about by the owe me generation.

          • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 3:13:01 PM

            Oh, please. Typical. Do you make yourself feel better about your unpatriotic stance by assuming tax dollars only go to social programs for the poor? Some taxes go to welfare programs, but taxes also go toward education, building infrastructure, funding research, exploring alternative energy, healthcare for the old, and benefits for veterans. I am currently studying for my PhD. in clinical psychology. Without government loans and research grants, higher education would not be possible. How do you expect people to get the degrees necessary to contribute to society without government programs, genius? Or should we just do away with formal education for doctors, lawyers and professors and go back to apprenticeship?

            When I am a psychologist with a successful practice, I certainly won't piss and moan because I pay a bit more in taxes so that the next student can make it. Get over yourself.

            • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:19:03 PM

              I have got news for you we pay enough in taxes. We also are very giving and help others. I know all about college grants as we are currently helping two nieces get through college with our big bad money. We will be helping another niece or two and a nephew or two with college. We helped our daughter through college. I don't need your pathetic lectures about helping others. We give plenty in taxes and in helping elsewhere. Your assumptions reflect highly on you.

              • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 3:31:05 PM

                No. Your assumption is that if someone is "too lazy to work " they should leave. I was just pointing out that taxes go to many worthwhile places that have NOTHING to do with unemployment. Both of my parents work. My father is also a war vet. But they CANNOT pay $20000 a year for my doctoral training. I commend you for helping your nieces, but that is a choice. Why complain about it? If they are not your dependents and they need extra money they can apply for loans and grants just like everyone else.

                The point is that government spending is necessary. And yes, the highest earners pay the lion's share of taxes. And yes, greedy corporations make things worse for ethical business owners like yourself. Now, my question is after 8 years of conservative economic policies under Bush and the previous 8 years of democratic policies under Clinton, whose policies WORKED?

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:42:26 PM

                  I am not complaining about helping family I was trying to show you that your attacks about me not wanting to help others was unfounded. Our relatives do get grants but you surely know that they do not cover private college education. We actually did and will do without to fund our daughter and other relatives and we don't mind it is what we want to do. I don't mind paying more than others we do. What really upsets me is while I am paying more I am told we are not the "real workers" and somehow we don't work hard and somehow we did not deserve what we have worked for. I am also anger because there are many people in this country who choose not to work hard. I don't owe them anything. Those who can't work or need just some help getting started I have no problem helping. It is the I am owed generation that I find fault with. I was not owed a college education. I worked through college and earned it. The same is true for my husband. When a person sets back and resents other who have worked hard to get where they are that is not helpful. To me that is unpatriotic to resent people who have contributed. Yes, the middle class does much to further this country. They too should be appreciated. It is about respecting everyone not just some.

                  • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 4:02:05 PM

                    I agree 100% about people who don't work hard and expect to be provided for. However, they represent a small minority of Americans who benefit from government programs. I don't want to support a free-loader anymore than you do. But I am not willing to punish a young person who is trying to better his or herself through higher education or punish a veteran of war who may need disability benefits after he or she returns home. That's why I have to grin and bear it when taxes are taken out of my student assistanship stipend. I don't like it. I could use a couple hundred extra dollars a month to help with my expenses, but I know that our country cannot function without taxes.

                    I never meant to suggest that you and your husband did not work hard for what you have. You deserve to reap the benefits of your labor. Unfortunately, we are in an economic crisis. SOMEONE has to sacrifice more for the greater good. Unfortunately, a lot of hard working Americans are the ones who have to sacrifice. That's why I blame the leadership that let us get to his point. That's why I want CHANGE. Not 10% change, but 100% change.

                    Given that we agree on the moral issue, my remaining question is a political one. Do you think our country was better off under Clinton or under Bush? Given their policies parallel Obama and McCain, it should make the current choice cut and dry.

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 4:40:53 PM

                      I don't think that you can compare. First Clinton inherited a good economy through George Bush Sr. and Reagan as well. He had a republican congress and senate part way through which keep Clinton in check. Bush inherited 911 which was in the works because of a weakened Clinton presidency. Fannie and Freddie Mac where a combination of both parties errors but I would tend to think more democrat responsibility. To me Obama would be a weak president on foreign policy. Which we can't afford and way to left of center on other issue. So I will stick with McCain. I don't think he is Bush third term.

                      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/28/2008 9:57:46 AM

                        "I don't think that you can compare. First Clinton inherited a good economy through George Bush Sr. "

                        That's interesting, considering that Bush Sr was tossed out of office based on a poor economy.

                • Posted By: summer4077 @ 10/27/2008 4:10:14 PM

                  Don't argue with her, she's beyond reasoning. I think she's loriw in disguise.

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 4:15:44 PM

                    Really summer what nonsense. You talk about treating others with respect and then you post this trash. Give me a break.

                    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 5:12:27 PM

                      You have absolutely no room to talk about being disrespectful.

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 5:22:36 PM

                        Hey I'm just learning from you all. But in truth I don't like responding like this. It is not my way. I get anger when others are nasty. I really don't know why you would complain when you are really hateful to others though.

                        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/28/2008 9:51:09 AM

                          " Hey I'm just learning from you all. "

                          Typical republican...full of excuses.

                    • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 4:58:19 PM

                      Umm... I don't know what you guys are talking about. I'm still curious about what you think about the policies of McCain and Obama and the evidence of the last 16 years.

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 5:10:15 PM

                        I answered your question in another post. Summer likes to attack people and then complains when they stand up for themselves. But I still should not respond with anger that is just her way.

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 4:20:44 PM

                    Do you lie often? Just wondered. It is a great substitute for your obvious lack of intelligence.

                    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 5:13:17 PM

                      You mean like you did, about McCain and Acorn? I notice you ran away from that after I posted a link.

                      Why am I not surprised?

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 5:31:39 PM

                        Actually totally false. I went to site and read link again. I had read it at the time. Don't agree with Michelle though.

                        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 5:51:51 PM

                          You can disagree all you like.

                          Facts are facts.

            • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 3:53:25 PM

              And you think the available funds will be given to education programs? You think that when you get a student grant its not a welfare? Is it because "welfare" has a negative connotation for you? Because it is a freebie that someone else paid for...your assumptions about people and what they mean make me a bit nervous about your ability to be a clinician. But hey, they give a degree to just about anyone who puts in the hours and you can even be ABD for awhile if you want.

              The thing is, people should have a choice to donate to anything except for things that affect or are used by everyone. Or, people should all equally pay into it. If Person X has 3% increase, then so should Person B.

              Try and remember your stats class...I know you want to do the chatter thing, but if you go back to a r^2 result, I bet you would find the correlation percentage of people who would like to have no choice where their money donated without their instruction or direction goes and contentment to be very low and not significant.

              However, if you said, everyone who pays the same and gets to decide where the money goes and their contentment level...bet you would beat the .05

              • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 5:36:13 PM

                Btw, can you honestly say that 10% for someone making $30,000 (what we pay teachers in the south) is the same as 10% for someone earning $250,000 (i.e. business owner/CEO)? Which person is truly going to have their quality of life impacted by their taxes? Would the CEO (even taxed at 25-30% EVER trade places with the teacher who is taxed at 10%? NEVER. Yes, the CEO would rather invest that money or enjoy spending it on nice things, but at the end of the day, they are not struggling because they are paying higher taxes.

                Don't get me wrong. They should not have to pay high taxes indefinitely while a freeloader collects welfare indefinitely. We are talking about RIGHT NOW during the crisis.

              • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 5:28:36 PM

                I'm not even going to address your complete misuse of hypothesis testing of the null hypothesis because that has NOTHING to do with this conversation. :-)

                Anyhoot. Sure, I'd love to live in a society where I can dictate where my tax dollars go. Perhaps that will happen if we ever reach a point where citizens can vote for or against everything the U.S. government funds (btw, Obama wants to move us one step closer by providing an online itemized breakdown of the treasury budget).

                Since we are not at that point yet, we have to deal with the fact that some of our money WILL go to freeloaders, but a good amount of our money go to worthy causes.

                I, like many other young professionals, did not come from a family that could afford to privately fund my education. After my degree, I will (obviously) earn a lot more than I do now. So, if I am forutnate enough to hit the top tax bracket and earn more than $250,000K per year:
                1. YAY for me
                2. I am more willing to pay upwards of 20%-30% of my income in taxes while a graduate student pays 5%-10% than to not allow funding for that student's education. To me, as long as I am still able to live comfortably (which even with a net yearly income of $175,000 after taxes is more than possible) AND we are decreasing the national deficit so that less taxes will be required of me in the future (also, Clinton was able to do this) then I could sacrifice temporarily for the greater good.

            • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:24:01 PM

              Why would you assume that because I feel I pay a fair amount of taxes that I don't want to help the poor or am not a patriot? We all should do our fair share to help others. You really judge unfairly and read much into what is not there. I don't think that lack of judgement will help you when you practice.

        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:13:46 PM

          Just for your information I came from working class parents. My father worked in a plant and my mother worked in various clerical/technical positions. Never once did I hear them talk like you do. They knew with hard work they would succeed and they respected people who worked hard as well. Maybe because my husband has a small business and has worked 80 hours a week at it for over 20 years I can see more than one side. In fact I was talking to a gentleman recently who was a union member and went on to own his own company. He said those who cannot see both sides really have no idea what they are talking about. I agree.

        • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 3:07:06 PM

          Which companies pay zero taxes? Link one, with their financials. All tax sections, including sales tax and federal sections, state sections...do you think they just pay one tax like an individual?

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 10/27/2008 5:13:27 PM

      Uh, no.

      Corporations pay a LOT of taxes if they're successful. They get a lot of subsidies, too, but I've *never* seen it come out to zero. I was pretty shocked when I learned as an adult about double taxation (on earnings and dividends) and that corporations at the upper levels can end up paying as much as 60% of their net profits in taxes.

      I still support Obama, though, for the reasons others have mentioned - if we don't get the middle class jumpstarted again everyone's going to be doing a whole lot worse, businesses or no. Just like people and their incomes, we should hope that American business' worst problem is making so much money that it hits the highest tax brackets.

    • Posted By: TwoSidedBrain @ 10/27/2008 2:56:28 PM

      Many corporations do not pay taxes because of their structure. Many corporations are structured so all money coming in is distributed to the employees or partners so the corporation itself has no money at the end of the year, but the people within the corporate structure pay their share of taxes into the system.
      Also, the top 5% of wage earners in the US cover 92% of the federal income tax burden. Check your own research.

      • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 3:41:45 PM

        It would be nice to see the financials of one corp that pays no taxes. What do you mean by "taxes"? State? Federal? Which kind of taxes?

        Show me one company. Post the financials somewhere and link it.

    • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 3:05:46 PM

      And which taxes are we talking about? Income? Sales? etc?

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:41:44 PM

      You obviously do not nor ever had a business. We have one and between fed, state, and local taxes we probably are close to paying out 50% of our income. People make up these false statements that claim businesses do not pay taxes. Look at the % of americans paying most of the taxes and you will see it is a very small percentage. Are there a few businesses somehow who get by without paying their fair share. Probably, then eliminate the loop-hoops don't overtax all businesses. That's just a no brainer.

      • Posted By: romorriso @ 10/27/2008 2:51:48 PM

        The issue here is that the very TOP of the wealth holders and income earners AND the bottom rungs of the economic ladder don't pay much tax at all --- at least not income tax. Sales, property, use and other taxes not related to income or wealth are completely different topics.

        So, at issue, is that the middle of America and those in comfortable earnings brackets pay. Considering the middle class was the largest class (post WW2), perhaps it makes sense that group is paying quite a bit. I include all but the wealthiest in this group. I know that to some, a net profit of $250,000 may sound like a fortune, but it is not. But, for those who own the WEALTH of this country (the capital and the land and much of Wall Street), they can and do use every device legally available to them to avoid INCOME taxes. Thus, so do the huge corporations.

        We're all in this together folks. My greatest concern is the class warfare that has started in this country. And I'll get bashed for this, but it was started in the Nixon and Regan years. Blame instead of cooperation. Hate instead of hope.

        I do pray we can finally all come together. Do what is right. Do what is AMERICAN and once again provide a culture where every man and woman can pursue the dream.

        • Posted By: Ocky @ 10/27/2008 3:05:44 PM

          On this point, I agree with you. The loopholes MUST be closed. I also agree that business owners who contribute their fair share should not be punished for the greedy corporations. Now who do you think will close those loopholes? The Dems or the Rep (who receive gigantic controbutions from the aforementioned greedy corps)???

    • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 2:57:00 PM

      Big business does not pay taxes? Go ahead and explain clearly how that happens. Wow, you just take whatever you see, grab a line from this article/TV Show/ Radio program and mash them all together. You are either a liar or insane. What research is it you would like us to do? Where is your research?

      You don't even understand the concept of "trickle down effect". These big mean companies that would go broke without us...and what do you think they are made out of? Robots? "We" are the ones who work there, we are the ones who buy from them, trade, invest, get loans from, etc. You want them gone? They are an enemy? Do you grow all your own food and make your own clothes? Build your own house? Are you so unclear that these companies are created by us, funded by us, worked at by us and provide us with services or goods that we want and need?

      Your outrage is so absurd. You are mad at a system that you didn't win at. Go to college, get a degree, advance your life. No one is stopping you from making the money you need to...definately not the big businesses.

  • Posted By: MCGILL @ 10/27/2008 11:50:12 PM

    One can only wonder how the corruption of this election was able to rise to this magnitude without government intervention or maybe the government is corrupt and is ok with acorn and foreigners funding and voting for obama. It will be a sad day in America if obama wins and Canada will see an American exodus as people flee from policies that will doom this great nation.America we deserve better vote McCain / Palin

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/28/2008 9:35:46 AM

      If someone is such a coward that they will flee their country because they lose an election, then good riddance. May history forget they were our countrymen.

      Also, good luck with the Canada thing. I am fairly certain they won't want you. After all, they - along with most of Europe - are horrified by the neocon movement, especially the followers of that freak we call Palin.

      Well, except for "Concerned Canadian". Maybe he'll let you crash on his couch.

    • Posted By: Alvy @ 10/28/2008 2:42:00 AM

      Tic tac toe three dumb posts in a row.

  • Posted By: caspar56 @ 10/28/2008 8:36:43 AM

    I do not know who to vote for they both willl spend money but McCain will spend more with hit building 43 nuke plants in his first term if he go's with that plan he talk about 18 months ago.But with a dem hhouse he might not do 1 thing he planed.

  • Posted By: FRoss3711 @ 10/27/2008 1:21:16 PM

    Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

    Once in the restaurant my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.

    When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

    I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

    As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.

    Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.

    • Posted By: krounded @ 10/27/2008 1:40:04 PM

      You are ridiculous if you believe what is on a homeless guys sign.
      The idea is to give working people a little bit more. Get the wealthy to pay their fare share of taxes.
      The notion that someone is going to give all the non-working people a bunch of money is a right wing talking point, not a policy.

      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 1:42:20 PM

        Are you crazy. The wealthy are paying way more than there fair share in taxes. They are paying most of the taxes!

        • Posted By: Heartlight3 @ 10/27/2008 2:22:35 PM

          That's because they have most of the money!

          • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:37:42 PM

            And they earned it! You all might want to try that!

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 3:10:47 PM

              So what? They benefit most, they pay most.

              I challenge you to point out one (1) rich person that went broke by paying his taxes (as opposed to being fined for cheating).

              • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:32:22 PM

                That is not the point.

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 3:34:56 PM

                  Then what is?

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 4:46:00 PM

                    That people are not owed. That the well off pay enough in taxes. They should pay more because they have more but they already do. So why attack them.

                    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 5:47:36 PM

                      Okay, then try this one: The bills have to be paid.

                      Any adult knows that. Well, after the GOP has spend a term or three out of office, maybe they'll remember it.

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/28/2008 7:51:53 AM

                        Any adult knows this - you either work harder or reduce your bills. You don't expect others to pay them. These comments only apply to those capable of this. For people who are not able I'm all for helping.

                    • Posted By: Bona Phide @ 10/27/2008 5:57:27 PM

                      Are you joking? The wealthy are paying less now then they have since the late 20's. Progressive taxation is the bedrock of Capitalism. The wealthy are SUPPOSED to pay more, because they benefit the most from the system we have all agreed upon. When you look at Executive wages across the board, they have gone up exponentially in the past 50 years. The average worker's wages have doubled. In the last 8yrs Executive wages are still going up, and NOW the average worker has seen their wages go down. That's a fact. The rich ARE getting richer, while the average WORKING man has seen his pay go down. It is high time we made the pay structure a little more fair in this country. There is a reason why our grandparents could afford to raise 5-7 kids working a blue collar job, and we struggle to raise one or two...

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/28/2008 7:49:49 AM

                        The people who benefit the mostg are those who pay no or little taxes but get all the benefits of what the government provides.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 2:40:52 PM

          No, they aren't.

    • Posted By: Bona Phide @ 10/27/2008 3:37:43 PM

      FRoss3711: This is a horrible anology, because the waiter you shafted does not make over $250,000 just like Joe the Plumber was a horrible anology as well. This is another case where uneducated people are trying to use fear to pull the wool over our eyes...

    • Posted By: myxytptlk @ 10/27/2008 1:40:36 PM

      a BETTER ANALOGY WOULD HAVE BEEN IF YOU HAD SPOKEN TO THE OWNER OF THE EATERY ,AND ASKED HIM IF HIS PERSONAL INCOME EXCEEDED 250,000.00. iF HE ANSWERED YES...THEN YOU COULD TELL HIM THAT YOU WERE DEDUCTING THREE DOLLARS OFF THE CHECK TO GIVE TO A HOMELESS PERSON. iF HE WAS A DECENT MAN HE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO HELPING SOMEONE IN NEED. THEN YOU COULD LEAVE THE THREE DOLLAR TIP AS WELL FOR THE MINIMUM WAGE EARNING WAITER. EVERYBODY IS HAPPY......EXCEPT THOSE THAT LOST THE ELECTION OF COURSE

      • Posted By: Brammy @ 10/27/2008 1:48:03 PM

        ARe you the only one spamming this freaking email on any board you can get your hands on? The above analogy is not a real world scenario but an viral boguys email

  • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/27/2008 2:02:49 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    Hear Obama in 2001 Chicago Public Citizen Radio Interview criticizing the Warren Court as not radical enough for not pursuing redistribution of wealth.

    Obama Says that community organizing is for the purpose of assembling the political power to force redistribution of wealth.

    • Posted By: Brammy @ 10/27/2008 2:13:00 PM

      Redistribution of wealth = fair wages for a days work. Unfortunately most employers do not exercise this basic concept as evidenced by the glut of minimum wage jobs with astonishing profits. A fair wage means paying those who create that weakth a fair share of the wealth they helped create.

      That was the premise behind trickle down economics except for the fact that time has proven the only thing that rolls downhill when it comes to wealth

      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:23:19 PM

        That is totally false. Most businesses are very fair to their employees. The ones that are not are the exceptions. You people who hate anyone who is in business are really foolish. If every business closed who who pay the employees. Attack the businesses who are corrupt. I have no problem with that but do not paint a broad brush that is totally inaccurate.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 2:37:12 PM

          "Most businesses are very fair to their employees."

          Right up until the moment they send their jobs overseas.

          • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 2:47:04 PM

            Are you just dumb or what? Most businesses never go overseas. Especially small business that employees more than big business. You really have no respect for people who work hard and provide jobs for this nation. It is a shame. With Obama's tax plans I can see more big business moving overseas.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 3:06:45 PM

              "Are you just dumb or what?"

              Are you capable of remaining civil, or what?

              "Most businesses never go overseas."

              But 32,000 manufacturing jobs per month DO.

              "Especially small business that employees more than big business."

              Small businesses will not be hit by Obama's tax plan.

              "You really have no respect for people who work hard and provide jobs for this nation. It is a shame."

              Okay, now you're just parroting GOP talking points. You can do better than that.

              "With Obama's tax plans I can see more big business moving overseas."

              Okay, so then we hit them with huge tarrifs. Tax 'em to DEATH, if they hate their nation so much. After all, what Obama is proposing is the exact same level of taxation these companies were perfectly happy with under the Reagan administration. This isn't survival, it's pure greed. So let them offshore...and then treat them as foreigners. Sounds fair to me.

              • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:29:11 PM

                I am not even wasting my time.

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 3:32:00 PM

                  It's okay if you run. Most of the sissies do.

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 3:58:27 PM

                    There is a difference in running because your scared or because you are bored too death. I am bored. And besides I have to make money so I can support others like you.

                    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 5:14:10 PM

                      Of course you're "bored". You are unable to respond, so you feign boredom, and run off to continue your same, tired, disproven responses.

                      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/27/2008 5:25:07 PM

                        I guess you have not kept up with my responses. I gave you the cites you ask for. But anyone who just attacks others and name calls with no proof does bore me. You are nasty. But I'm going to go do something healthy like exercise. Talking to people like you really is poisonous.

                        • Posted By: Bona Phide @ 10/27/2008 6:19:14 PM

                          Not quite as poisonous as your entitlement posturing. The fact is that the average worker is making less money than they did 7yrs ago. Cost of living is soaring, and raises are few and far between. You claim it's people being lazy. I'd say it's the fact that money isn't trickling down like the conservatives promised...

                          • Posted By: paproudmom @ 10/28/2008 7:45:38 AM

                            I feel sorry for people who are having a hard time making a living. In our business we have had good & bad times. We worked harder and got through it. There are all types of people at all income levels. Some are willing to work hard some are not. I am not willing to provide income for those who can work hard but do not. It limits us helping those who truly need it. Sorry but I resent that.



      • Posted By: valark @ 10/27/2008 3:08:32 PM

        Fair wages? What do you think your salary is? You think you deserve more? Then get a better job.

  • Posted By: MCGILL @ 10/28/2008 12:04:52 AM

    One other simple fact about obama is we are not electing him we are electing his speech writer that determines what obama will say and how.Whenever obama speaks outside of what was written for him he speaks his thoughts which the democrats consider a screw up.Will the real obama please speak up and the Hollywood version shut up.We need to know who you are and what you are about which has been a secret up to now.

  • Posted By: haynessemperfi @ 10/27/2008 11:32:15 PM

    Comment: C-SPAN THIRD PARTY DEBATE

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/includes/templates/library/flash_popup.php?pID=281952-1&clipStart=&clipStop=

    C-SPAN THIRD PARTY VP DEBATED NOVEMBER 2

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/27/2008 9:43:06 PM

    People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

    In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

    But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

    Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

    The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

    If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

    Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

    What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.


  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/27/2008 9:42:25 PM

    People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

    In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

    But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

    Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

    The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

    If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

    Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

    What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.


  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/27/2008 9:42:16 PM

    People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

    In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

    But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

    Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

    The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

    If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

    Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

    What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.


  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/27/2008 9:41:38 PM

    THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
    I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
    He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
    is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
    The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
    The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
    the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
    McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
    That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
    It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
    Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
    Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
    Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
    No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
    It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
    even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
    If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
    When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
    So why are the polls even close then ?
    Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
    which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
    They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
    Let's teach him we are smarter than that
    Stand up and hold them accountable
    Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
    Elect Obama Biden 2008






    Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/27/2008 9:41:26 PM

    THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
    I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
    He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
    is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
    The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
    The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
    the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
    McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
    That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
    It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
    Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
    Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
    Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
    No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
    It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
    even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
    If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
    When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
    So why are the polls even close then ?
    Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
    which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
    They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
    Let's teach him we are smarter than that
    Stand up and hold them accountable
    Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
    Elect Obama Biden 2008






    Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ

  • Posted By: Frustrated in Alaska @ 10/27/2008 9:36:56 PM

    Oh please. Now those who are hopeful, enthusiastically supporting their candidate and willing to unite as one are a problem? Looks to me like the media is running out of substance for their stories.

  • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/27/2008 9:27:33 PM

    http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=1205&category=News%20&%20Media~News
    With polls showing a tightening race for the White House, it looks like the Catholic vote again may be crucial to the outcome.
    And an Oct. 23 poll records a startling 20-point swing this week among Catholic voters in favor of John McCain.
    The IBD/TIPP daily tracking poll found Republican candidate McCain ahead of Democratic presidential candidate 48%-39% among the Catholics in its survey.
    The shift was part of a strong overall swing toward McCain in the IBD/TIPP poll.
    ???McCain has cut into Obama???s lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday,??? a press release stated. ???The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point de???cit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.???

    http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=1205&category=News%20&%20Media~News

  • Posted By: chlai88 @ 10/27/2008 9:23:32 PM

    Written like a cynic but let's give Obama & his Web 2.0 organization the benefit of doubt as it may well turn out that this is the defining moment when Washington becomes Washington 2.0.

  • Posted By: cmonalready @ 10/27/2008 9:23:30 PM

    Howard, this is not reporting. It's just goofy speculation. What's your support for the idea that Obama's volunteers and contributors are particularly supportive of talking with Iranian dictators or are anxious to cram ideas down GOP throats. You're a journalist. Act like it.

  • Posted By: it's about the future @ 10/27/2008 8:13:14 PM


    Dear readers, I fear that Mr. Fineman in his words, is" the Monster" and rabid exploiter of some fantasy in his head about Obama supporters.

    I do SCOFF at this attempt to point fingers at supporters and say that they are the problem looming on the horizon. It is insulting, far-fetched and far from the truth.

    Supporters of Obama will continue to do what they are doing now,
    which is
    to be
    supportive.

  • Posted By: Bona Phide @ 10/27/2008 3:04:31 PM

    I really cannot believe that there are still people saying that Obama hasn't explained what change he is proposing. Those of us who have managed to stay informed know exactly what Obama is proposing, as well as what McCain is proposing. McCain once again on Sunday explained on Meet The Press that his economic philosophies are for the most part the same as Bush's. We cannot afford that.

    Obama takes the Keynesian approach, which was first implemented under FDR during the Great Depression. Keynesian economics were implemented to help America get back on it's feet after the failed Trickle Down system caused the Great Depression. Those of us who have managed to stay informed during this election, for the most part, also know our history.

    Obama/ Biden 08

    • Posted By: Yo@kcmo @ 10/27/2008 3:14:36 PM

      YO - Bona Phide
      Everyone knows that The "NEW DEAL" was a total Failure and it took WW11 to get the ecomony
      going. Check your facts. You are a great FACTOID but it takes more than 3 syll. words to impress some of us

      • Posted By: H.S.B. @ 10/27/2008 5:52:03 PM

        If you'll believe someone that lived through the entire depression I will tell you that FDR and the new deal saved this country and my life. In 1930 I had lost my job, been evicted,had no money and was starving to death. My first job after the market crash was a CCC job that paid in dirty dried beans. WE WERE VERY HAPPY to get them. By 1936 I was back building cars and stayed there until Nixon crooked crowd gave our car industry to the Orient.

        H.S. Bliss

        • Posted By: Nins @ 10/27/2008 8:09:22 PM

          Dear Mr. Bliss,

          Thank you for your wonderful post. It is nice to hear from an old-timer. As you probably remember, the Republicans in 1933 were screaming that FDR was a Socialist. Seventy five years later, the GOP is still telling this lie. FDR was the greatest President America ever had. Everywhere you look you can see his good works: roads, bridges, dams, national parks, public works that built our infrastructure and put a generation of starving Americans back to work.

          Why were they starving? Because the greedy fat cats on Wall Street toppled the economy.

          Deja vu. Welcome to the future.

          Anybody who wants to compare FDR to Obama is on the right track. Obama has a great plan to strengthen America: create jobs, achieve energy independence, educate our youth and reclaim our rightful place as leader of the free world.

      • Posted By: Bona Phide @ 10/27/2008 5:07:02 PM

        What economics class did you take? Everyone knows that they were never able to fully determine the success of The New Deal, BECAUSE the war started. There were signs that it was working slowley, but surely. The war sped up our recovery, but the tax structure and regulations on business kept us from another depression for the next 70 odd yrs. You might want to go back and check that one...

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/27/2008 3:24:16 PM

        When we want to hear Rush Limbaugh's lies, we'll turn him on.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse