Democrats are going to do what every party does when they find themselves in complete control: Over-reach. Clinton lost the Congress after the Democrats controlled it for over 30 years and Bush lost it back. The mid-term elections are going to be bad news for the Democrats and everyone will be wondering why the Democrats can't connect with the populous.
What Are Rich People Thinking?
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 7:25:32 PM
-
Posted By: leepdx @ 11/11/2008 1:07:26 AM
Obama is cautious and I doubt he will over-reach, I have every hope that he and his Chief of Staff will be able to keep the Democrats in Congress in line.
-
-
Posted By: LaserGuidedLoogie @ 11/11/2008 1:00:39 AM
Yes the race to interpret the election in terms flattering to the Democrat agenda is well underway. So of course the marxist Democrats at Newsweek are telling us that everyone wants higher taxes. What a laugh.
Obama won because of the stock market crisis. Period. Any attempt to spin this any other way is simply dishonest. But then that's par for the course for marxist.
-
Posted By: LaserGuidedLoogie @ 11/11/2008 1:00:08 AM
Yes the race to interpret the election in terms flattering to the Democrat agenda is well underway. So of course the marxist Democrats at Newsweek are telling us that everyone wants higher taxes. What a laugh.
Obama won because of the stock market crisis. Period. Any attempt to spin this any other way is simply dishonest. But then that's par for the course for marxist.
-
Posted By: RO in Reno @ 11/10/2008 8:44:46 PM
People making over $250,000 have to have more common sense or they would not be making $250,000.
Obama always had a very significant poll lead among those with graduate degrees, these people too would most likely be in the higher income brackets.
But the Republican Party (known in the past as the party of business) if they actually understood business and set policy accordingly then business would be flourishing not closing their doors or finding protection in the bankruptcy courts.
The economic pain is moving up the income scale and these people are in as much danger of losing what they worked for as anyone else. And they are smart enough to know it.-
Posted By: leepdx @ 11/11/2008 12:57:28 AM
Well said!
-
-
Posted By: johnniecash @ 11/11/2008 12:53:36 AM
Some of us believe in a thing called the "social contract". You know, where we all band together to help each other out. I know, it's not popular these days. Maybe people have seen enough of what happens when it's every man for himself and screw the rest. That's why the nation looks like it's been run over by a fascist in a big pair of cleats.
-
Posted By: oicnow @ 11/11/2008 12:53:18 AM
Maybe these people DID vote their wallet. The rich made LOTS of money in the Clinton years, even after taxes. If I was to offer you a a $30,000 raise but told you that you'd have to pay 2% more taxes on that $30k, would you turn it down? Of course not, you'd still be $29,400 ahead!
-
Posted By: LaserGuidedLoogie @ 11/11/2008 12:46:18 AM
Yes the race to interpret the election in terms flattering to the Democrat agenda is well underway. So of course the marxist Democrats at Newsweek are telling us that everyone wants higher taxes. What a laugh.
Obama won because of the stock market crisis. Period. Any attempt to spin this any other way is simply dishonest. But then that's par for the course for marxist.
-
Posted By: LaserGuidedLoogie @ 11/11/2008 12:45:34 AM
Yes the race to interpret the election in terms flattering to the Democrat agenda is well underway. So of course the marxist Democrats at Newsweek are telling us that everyone wants higher taxes. What a laugh.
Obama won because of the stock market crisis. Period. Any attempt to spin this any other way is simply dishonest. But then that's par for the course for marxist.
-
Posted By: LaserGuidedLoogie @ 11/11/2008 12:44:43 AM
Yes the race to interpret the election in terms flattering to the Democrat agenda is well underway. So of course the marxist Democrats at Newsweek are telling us that everyone wants higher taxes. What a laugh.
Obama won because of the stock market crisis. Period. Any attempt to spin this any other way is simply dishonest. But then that's par for the course for marxist.
-
Posted By: LaserGuidedLoogie @ 11/11/2008 12:42:31 AM
Yes the race to interpret the election in terms flattering to the Democrat agenda is well underway. So of course the marxist Democrats at Newsweek are telling us that everyone wants higher taxes. What a laugh.
Obama won because of the stock market crisis. Period. Any attempt to spin this any other way is simply dishonest. But then that's par for the course for marxist.
-
Posted By: Perusing-through @ 11/11/2008 12:14:39 AM
.
QUOTE FROM DONALD GROSS:
"As the campaign entered its final weeks, Barack Obama, who pledged to unite the country, singled out one group of people for ridicule: those making more than $250,000."
- - - -
.
QUOTE FROM DONALD GROSS (of Newsweek):
"As the campaign entered its final weeks, Barack Obama, who pledged to unite the country, singled out one group of people for ridicule: those making more than $250,000."
- - - -
Hi Donald,
You must have real thin skin to think Obama was singling you out for "ridicule". I did not see his query as ridicule. Obama was just trying to let the "HAVE NOTS" know they out number the "HAVES" by a 19-to-1 edge. And with a 19-to-1 lead, the "HAVE NOTS" have the power of the voting electorate on their side - - and they should use.
-
Posted By: dcjdjay @ 11/10/2008 11:25:46 PM
Campaign donations to Obama: $2300
Tax Increase from Obama: $3000
Relief in knowing that religious nutjobs and luddites will no longer dictate policy: priceless.
When you make enough money, you're willing to pay a bit more in taxes for such intangibles as peace of mind, pride in being an American, satisfaction that those you elected are working to help your fellow Americans.-
Posted By: Perusing-through @ 11/10/2008 11:59:04 PM
Thanks DCJDJAY. I have similar sentiments.
It is brutally painful to watch my country shredded by such incompetence. The last 8-years have been a national cluster-fu@%, thanks in great part to the current administration.
A slight 1998 "Clinton-level" tax role back is a small price to pay to strengthen the middle-class and put them back on tax paying status.
-
-
Posted By: simplysmarter @ 11/10/2008 10:56:55 PM
Sunshine1957...me thinks you've had one too many puffs on a crack pipe. You're just like all other bitter election loosers who didn't get their way. Get over it. None of us who voted for Obama were brain-washed. We just hought he was a smarter, more balanced (all-around better) candidate who's views reflected our own.
-
Posted By: Sunshine1957 @ 11/10/2008 11:21:55 PM
HONEY, STOP THE CRACK YOURSELF!!! I DON'T DO DRUGS LIKE YOU AND OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/10/2008 11:55:42 PM
Stop yelling. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/10/2008 11:52:19 PM
Ok, sunny, if McCain had won would that have meant that you were "brainwashed" by him as well? By the way. making 250k does not make one wealthy. It does make you properous though. But then maybe it depends on which part of the country you live in. Everyone in the upper brackets worked pretty hard for it and just maybe voting for Obama was a vote of conscience and also a way to preserve some of that money in the portfolio. Because it has been shrinking, as you know. Let's not even talk about real estate values!
-
Posted By: Kerberos @ 11/10/2008 7:28:06 PM
All who justify giving any money to the state or investing it must face question: At what point can somebody else do with my money more than what I can, and why do they need mine? If the answer stacks up totally in the affirmative for what others can do, why do you keep any? Would you deny the choice to others through confiscation?
-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 7:43:38 PM
You are so absolutely right!
Let's each of us go hire our own army, navy, and air force (not to diss the Marine Corps, but those are the three basics...)
Let's each of us go hire our own police and firefighting forces
Let's each of us go build our own medical clinics and hire our own doctors and nurses, etc.
Let's each of us go build our own schools and hire our own teachers
Let's each of us go build our own water treatment facilities
Let's each of us go build our own streets and outfit them with the proper traffic control devices, maintain those roads during snow and ice storms
Get the picture yet?-
Posted By: martimr1 @ 11/10/2008 11:50:50 PM
You are quite right - that's the test. And for me, it comes out pro-taxes every time. From library fines to FICA, what the Government gets with my money typically benefits me more than what I could get with it. Taxes are a bargain. (OK, the Iraq war, not so much. But most of the time.)
-
Posted By: mrjungles @ 11/10/2008 7:48:37 PM
It's so simple, I would venture to guess that the righteys would have got it by now if they were ever going to. Unfortunately, some have imbibed a bit too much of the Reagan kool-aid... OHHH NOOOOO! :)
-
-
-
Posted By: kevin44in @ 11/10/2008 11:50:12 PM
Well, the assumption here is that the only thing one cares about is how much money one makes. Surely we're able to view ourselves as part of a much larger, much grander social context, no? Much more puzzling is why someone making less than $35K a year would vote Republican, since aside from some vague promise of a trickle down, there ain't much there to work with, either, unless one is an Evangelical (and Roe v Wade is still not overturned...).
-
Posted By: jillharris @ 11/10/2008 11:46:06 PM
We also hover around the $250k mark. We are careful with our finances. When we bought our last car, we paid a little more than we had in past years to "buy up" to a more fuel efficient car and one that should last longer than our previous one did. When we bought our current house we paid a little more to buy a house within walking distance of good schools. It is surrounded by more valuable houses than our own that would hopefully protect our investment. Why would we not have a similar idea about our government and our country's economy? If it takes us paying a little more to have a better, healthier, more just nation--why wouldn't we?
-
Posted By: martimr1 @ 11/10/2008 11:35:34 PM
Is it so hard to understand. Does human decency count for nothing? Year-by-year, I fluctuate between "rich" and "merely well-off" by the standard set in this article. I have everything I need except a secure retirement and a guarantee of decent medical care. I can afford to pay more taxes. I vote Democratic in the hope that we'll develop a compassionate society where we will ALL have a secure retirement and decent medical care.
-
Posted By: A Midwest Mom @ 11/10/2008 5:16:48 PM
%50 percent of the American people did not vote for Obama or his policies even though he had the media completely on his side and had twice the campaign finances. You would do well not to be so insulting to at least half of the American people. You would also do well not to assume that just because someone is for abortion and judicial tyranny that they are somehow more "intellectual".
-
Posted By: miketheknife @ 11/10/2008 5:22:25 PM
I was wondering . . . 8 years ago, after the person you voted for became president, did you give much thought to the more than 50% of the voters who did not vote for him? Did you extend an olive branch to them? Did you rejoice when Bush appointed two conservative, anti-abotion justices to the Supreme Court? Have you ever heard of the psychological term "projection?"
-
Posted By: miketheknife @ 11/10/2008 5:26:06 PM
P.S. No one is for abortion - people are for choice. And as for judicial tyranny - do you really think anyone is for tyranny? Oh, maybe the people who voted for Prop 8 in Calif. who want the government to get involved in peoples' marriage choices, huh?
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/10/2008 11:28:09 PM
mike: my thoughts exactly. You put it down much better than I could have.
-
-
-
Posted By: mcleodmn @ 11/10/2008 5:35:59 PM
Your right, but the belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree? Makes perfect sense.
-
-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 5:38:15 PM
To "A Midwest Mom":
Are you kidding me? 50% did NOT vote for Barack Obama? Well, maybe in your TOWN, but if you look at the results of the general election, you will note President-Elect Obama received not only an electoral landslide (slightly better than 2:1) he also received a popular vote margin of 65,937,955 to 57,756,059 - a margin of victory of 53% to 46%
You would do well not to be so insulting to the better than half of the American people!
You would also do well to not assume that all people who are pro-CHOICE are also pro-ABORTION. How would you like it if your thirteen year-old daughter were raped and ended up pregnant? You would likely force your CHILD to carry the baby to term, not caring about her physical well-being, the risk of her dying in childbirth, nor about her mental health. Every time she sees the baby, she is forced to remember the brutality of her situation; and thanks to you and others who would eliminate the option of terminating an unplanned and definitely unwanted pregnancy she might find a classmate willing to perform a back-alley coat-hanger abortion, the result of which would likely be her own death. This has been proven by the number of such deaths prior to Roe v Wade.
Grow up, woman! Pro-CHOICE means exactly that: CHOICE. If abortions are outlawed, THERE IS NO CHOICE.
Anti-abortion proponents are, by their own argument anti-CHOICE; and that means anti-FREEDOM.
We as Americans take pride in our FREEDOMS; I perceive any anti-FREEDOM stance as anti-AMERICAN.-
Posted By: RavenMaven @ 11/10/2008 5:48:24 PM
As to your Pro-choice argument, The vast majority of pro-life people are specifically against abortion as a contraceptive, and do make the exception in cases of rape, incest, or imminent risk of death of the mother related to the pregnancy.
-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 6:06:21 PM
I'lll give you benefit of the doubt; but if that is true, why do virtually all attempts at writing anti-abortion laws NOT make those exceptions?
And why should those laws be necessary anyway if, as you say, such "pro-life people" believe abortion is OK? Roe v Wade gives women the right to CHOICE. "Pro-life people" are the ones fighting to overturn Roe v Wade, not pro-CHOICE people.
If abortion is OK, the "pro-life people" have no reason to fight for new laws or to overturn the law of the land.-
Posted By: MicheleC1 @ 11/10/2008 9:52:42 PM
Killing a baby is NOT okay. It is understood in cases of rape or incest or life of the mother...though in most cases of the latter nowdays the baby can be delivered pre maturely and at least given a chance. Most times it is used as convenience though and is a huge business for planned parenthood. Those that see it as a lump of tissue think it is okay, those who realize it is a baby realize it is NEVER just okay.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/10/2008 11:23:39 PM
You are too ranting and off topic. The article in question is about those making over 250k a year and being taxed accordingly. First of all nobody but nobody thinks abortion is a form of birth control. Second, to those whom much is given, much is expected. You lost the election, now please move on and get over it. If children and babies are your cause[ as they are mine] work in your community to do something to improve their lot. Sitting here screaming away is not helping . Just letting you vent.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: LeMec @ 11/10/2008 6:15:03 PM
Here is where you are wrong. Pro-Life supporters are Pro-Choice. We just disagree with when the choice (or decision) takes place. We believe that women, and men, have the choice whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not. After they make that decision they, both, have the RESPONSEABILITY to take ownership for their choices. At that point they, both, have the RESPONSEABLITY to give that baby the opportunity to live as they have lived. If they are unable to care for the child there are over 23 couples ready to adopt every child put up for adoption in this country. I know the Pro-Abortion supporters always bring up the exception to rule, like rape and incest, and try to make it the focal point. However, most Pro-Life supports also support clauses that distinguish in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother???s health is in danger. The point is that as Pro-Life supports we do not believe people have the right to use abortion as a form of birth control. A person???s choice takes place before conception occurs.
-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 6:25:18 PM
As I point out below, the facts belie your argument:
Virtually all the cases involving new laws, designed to overthrow Roe v Wade, attempt to curtail abortion completely. Hence the SCOTUS decisions against every one of those laws.
No law banning abortion completely will ever pass muster; yet that is what the "pro-life" (anti-choice) movement is seeking.
If people are truly pro-choice, they do not propose every woman get an abortion. The vast majority of pro-choice proponents do not believe in abortion as the only alternative; we simply want to guard every woman's right to a free choice.-
Posted By: LeMec @ 11/10/2008 7:18:54 PM
I think you have missed the point I was making. Pro-Life supporters, support a persons choice to engage in sexual intercourse (that is when conception occurs, and abortion may be considered). We also recognize that with the freedom to make choices comes the responsibility to take ownership for those choices, something that is completely lacking in the pro-abortion camp. Pro-Life supports do believe in choice, Pro-Abortion supports simply do not believe in responsibility.
You make an over generalization when you say that, ???Virtually all the cases involving new laws, designed to overthrow Roe v Wade, attempt to curtail abortion completely.??? Many pieces of legislation recently introduced, have clauses that distinguish in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother???s health is in danger.
As for past SCOTUS decisions. The growing support for complete bans on partial birth abortions and the passage of legislation that allows murders who kill pregnant women to be prosecuted for killing two people stand it direct opposition to past court decisions. In the no so distant future we will see a real test for Roe v Wade. As you already know the decision will be heavily influenced by the personal leanings of the justices, maybe even more then precedent.-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 7:55:37 PM
You, my friend, are the one missing the point.
You continue to characterize the pro-choice movement as "pro-abortion."
Let me state clearly and succinctly: There is NO pro-abortion movement.
And I stand by my point that the vast majority of pro-life people are actively seeking to completely ban abortions under all circumstances. The record is clear: the only cases reaching SCOTUS are attempts to overthrow Roe v Wade.
That is one reason the GOP, as originally personified, is fading into obscurity and becoming little more than a mouthpiece for the ultra-right, holier-than-thou religious types.
Sure, there's hope for the GOP, but as someone else pointed out, the pendulum has swung: the GOP controlled Congress for only six years; the Democratic Party controlled Congress for over three decades and now has control again. I would have to believe that is a sign of the United States Electorate favoring less religious dogma and ideology in control of our Government.-
Posted By: LeMec @ 11/10/2008 8:50:53 PM
This is great. I enjoy having exchanges of opinion, and hope you do as well. However, is evident that you speak more from opinion than fact.
You said, ???And I stand by my point that the vast majority of pro-life people are actively seeking to completely ban abortions under all circumstances. The record is clear: the only cases reaching SCOTUS are attempts to overthrow Roe v Wade.???
In the partial birth abortion ban of 2003 (GONZALES V. CARHART) a specific exception was made for cases when the mothers health is at risk. This also illustrations that not all SCOTUS cases are direct attempts to overthrow Roe v Wade, but many are aimed at preventing infanticide. Please do some research before you make over generalized statements.
I have also noticed that you have not acknowledged that pro-abortion supporters in fact do not believe in taking responsibility for choices made. Again Pro-Lifers support a womans choice to become pregnant or not, just not the ability of the parents to deny the baby its choice to live.
As a comparable example to my point, we allow people to drink, but do not allow people to drink and then drive. They take another???s life into their hands when they do so. People have the choice to become pregnant, but not the choice to take the babys life into their own hands.
Now if you want to change the topic and discuss the failings of the GOP. I would be more than happy to discuss that. I have many thoughts on that subject. With no surprise I think you are a little off on your assessment.-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 9:31:57 PM
Like you, I do enjoy a reasoned exchange of ideas and opinions.
But you apparently refuse to accept or even acknowledge the fact that there is no such thing as a "pro-abortion" person or movement. By using the term "pro-abortion" you steadfastly continue to portray pro-choice people as murderers, or worse, with this profound lie.
So I see no point in discussing this further with you.
Aside from your never-ending use of a false characterization of freedom-loving Americans, it has been fun.-
Posted By: LeMec @ 11/10/2008 10:44:47 PM
I do have a hard time referring to those who support abortion as ???pro-choice???. If you or anyone else who has read this is interested in why, the article below illustrates some reasons why. It also discusses Obamas views on the subject.
I was looking forward to hearing your views on the connection between freedom of choice and responsibility for our choices. It has been fun
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml
-
-
Posted By: MicheleC1 @ 11/10/2008 9:47:30 PM
Yes, the pendulum has swung and we will see where it leads us. If the foca is passed as obama promised naral we will have:
infants aborted any time for any reason up until 40 weeks. You think no "reasonable woman" would do that and obama "trusts a woman to make a reasonable decision". As a nurse I heard of a young lady back in L&-
Posted By: MicheleC1 @ 11/10/2008 10:05:53 PM
Please read my two comments with the second one first don't know how they came out that way, but would not all fit together.
-
-
Posted By: MicheleC1 @ 11/10/2008 9:49:26 PM
In L&D about 20 weeks that asked "so the head is only formed right??? Some are uneducated. Do you think those standing to make thousands from the surgery will go ahead and educate her??? Parental consent laws will be abolished. 13 year old scared pregnant girls can bleed or develop infections without their parents knowing what is going on. All common complications of any surgery. Yep, you asked for it, ya got it!!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: PistolP @ 11/10/2008 6:02:09 PM
I would be willing to say a gigantic majority of pro-life supporters understand there are situations that call for a pregnancy to be aborted. Such as your elaborate description of a raping or if complications could harm the mother. Abortions are had because of these reasons less than 5% of the time. Your focus on these very minority happenings removes any credibility and left you a SCREAMING idiot. Look I can do it to. NOBODY thinks leaving a raped 13 year old to give birth when it could harm her is a good idea. Well there might be someone as extreme as you on the other side, but there's not many of you retards...You're just the LOUDEST.
-
Posted By: mlhoenig @ 11/10/2008 6:12:33 PM
oohhhh...goody for you; you've tried to start a flame-war.
I called nobody any names; you did... Take a peek in the mirror and you'll see who best fits your description of me.
Screaming? No...I used all caps selectively, to emphasize my point. Were I screaming, I would have used my CAPS LOCK key.
And, unlike you, I have my name prominently and proudly displayed, "PistolP" - clearly not your real name.
Go look in the mirror, my friend.
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss