Obama Says he Loves America
It’s never good when someone who is running for president has to overtly affirm his patriotism.
Barack Obama wants to make something clear: He loves America.
After a series of incidents that prompted questions about his patriotism, the Democratic presidential candidate is peppering speeches with explicit statements on his love of country.
First, he was not patriotic enough, now he is too patriotic. Would you please make up your mind?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 0710 hrs
Obama’s problem is he is not patriotic. People are starting to recognize this and question it. Obama, in spin mode, has to start pretending, otherwise he knows it’s over. Hopefully people will see through the mask. Obama is a socialist - no question about it.
Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 07, 2008 at 0726 hrs
First, he was not patriotic enough, now he is too patriotic. Would you please make up your mind?
He didn’t say he was being too patriotic - rather he comes off as so grossly unpatriotic that he has to overcompensate.
Posted by Fuzz on April 07, 2008 at 0729 hrs
What? a presidential candidate proclaims his love for his country? I’ve never heard of such heresy! How silly! How outrageous!
I think it’s best when we find an issue of substance to debate.
Amy brings up a point: Can a person be a socialist and patriotic? Her comments seem to indicate no. I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive. Ahh I probably shouldn’t hijack a post….
Posted by Mike on April 07, 2008 at 0840 hrs
He is not being “overly patriotic.” A few months ago, he said he would no longer wear a flag pin because he didn’t like what it represented (a symbol of patriotism and America).
Then, there’s that famous picture of him with his hands folded at his waist during the Pledge of Allegiance (again, a symobl of patriotism and America).
There’s his wife’s statements concerning her country. How she - who has more wealth than any of us commenting here - has not been proud of America since the 1980s.
And do I even need to bring up his pastor again? The man he called a “mentor” who said terrible things about America (calling it the US of KKK A, for example)?
There are *many* things Obama has said and done that leads us to question his patriotism.
And as much as many liberals will hate to hear this, a majority of America is fairly moderate and still patriotic. Many find Obama’s behaviors and attitudes disturbing.
As to Amy’s point: being patriotic and socialist is not mutually exclusive…when you live in a classically socialist state.
America is not socialist. It was founded on democratic principles and deeply patriotic values.
So it is incompatable to say you love America, but want to change pretty much everything she stands for (a capitalist economy, self-defense, Judeo-Christian values, etc.)
Methinks Obama doth protest too much…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 0853 hrs
Er, Amy, Obama is a capitalist Christian who supports the US invasion of Afghanistan as a necessary act of self-defense.
Methinks Amy doth accuse too much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 1055 hrs
The only thing that has brought up questions about his patriotism is the right wing noise machine and its incessant need to cast all Democrats as somehow less than completely American.
Barack Obama is a socialist? That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard in my life. Anyone with a knowledge of American history who cares to look at historical figures and make any kind of historical comparison will see that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both compare to to that bastion of socialist thought, Dwight Eisenhower. They’re both to the right of that flaming liberal Richard Nixon.
No, this is simply more fear-mongering and the spreading of more lies and disinformation, because the right wing noise machine certainly doesn’t want the public at large to focus its attention on what’s actually going on in the country. God forbid that people know that Republican policies have plunged the country into a recession and a war with no end in sight. God forbid that people figure out Republican policies have led to stagnant wages for the middle class and soaring energy prices. Much better to make people think that Barack Obama isn’t patriotic enough and that he’s (snort, giggle) socialist.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-serv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date;=03042008&type;
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 1158 hrs
Sorry about the bad link; I was afraid it wouldn’t work with ampersands in it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 1201 hrs
Barack Obama is a socialist?
yes
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 1538 hrs
And the so-called liberal media, the mainstream media, just follow right along. From Glenn Greenwald in Salon:
Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days: ‘Yoo and torture’ - 102; ‘Mukasey and 9/11’—73’; ‘Yoo and Fourth Amendment’—16; ‘Obama and bowling’—1,043; ‘Obama and Wright’—More than 3,000 (too many to be counted); ‘Obama and patriotism’ - 1,607; ‘Clinton and Lewinsky’—1,079.”
So the attorney general and White House counsel can spread whatever stories they’d like about torture and FISA, but Obama’s pastor and patriotism are thousands of times more important. Makes sense to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 1553 hrs
Please give us examples of Obama’s socialist tendencies.
I can say Bush is a fascist, but that doesn’t make it so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 1615 hrs
Obama’s socialist tendencies: wants to re-distribute the wealth. Doesn’t like successful big business. Wants more of what individuals earn to be given to the government. Hangs the flag of Vezezuela as well as a picture of Che Guavara in his Houston campaign headquarters, while at the same time refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin. Has a wife who is ashamed of our country - until her husband wants to be President. Promotes a “universal healthcare” plan that has no good solution other than to be socialist in nature. The people pay for it. Taxes, taxes and more taxes. The bigger the government and nanny state, the better. The less that is expected of individuals, the better - as long as they rely on the government to fulfill their every need. Obama’s plan is socialism and Obama is a socialist, which is becoming more and more apparent no matter how he tries to hide it.
Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 07, 2008 at 1950 hrs
Wants to redistribute the wealth? Doesn’t like successful big business? And you got this where??
Hangs the flag of Venezuela and a picture of Che in the Houston HQ? Hmm. Seems like that would have been all over the papers down here in Texas where I live. D’ja hear that in some breathless e-mail, maybe one that talked about his supposed Muslim religion?
Flag pin? His wife? What in the world does have to do with socialism?
Universal health care. OK. You have the glimmering of a point. But see, what he’s doing is trying to fix a health care system that’s badly broken, one that’s really expensive and doesn’t work all that well for a lot of people with one that’s a lot cheaper and more effective. It’s been found to be real effevtive oh…everyplace else in the world. It’s called universal health care.
And that “the less expected of individuals the better” thing—he addressed that in his speech the other day, the speech people have been raving about.
So no, he’s not a socialist. He’s a patriotic American who wants to help dig this country out of the morass that seven years of conservative incompetence and malfeasance have drug us into
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 2336 hrs
The pic of Che Guevara and the flag of Venezuela hanging in Obama’s campaign headquarters in Houston was big news a few months ago. Pictures were featured on the internet and Obama responded to questions about how proper this was by implying it was no big deal. (I tried to download a pic on this post - which did not work, then I included the website address, which this post did not allow me to include, if I wanted my post published.) You can probably find a pic easily on the internet yourself if you wish to see it. Patriotic? I think not….
Obama’s economic plan has also been called “the Robin Hood Approach”, meaning take from the “haves” to give to the “have nots”. In addition, Obama wants to hurt big business by taking away any corporate benefits and/or tax breaks they may have. He also wants to eliminate tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (even though they usually pay the most in taxes to begin with). His plan includes higher taxes for all, higher social security taxes and a massive increase in domestic spending. While calling America the “greatest nation” he also wants to “change” it. If America is as great as he says he believes, why does he want to re-make it? Obama’s plan is pure socialism and if he gets elected to be the next President, we are doomed as a nation.Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 08, 2008 at 0732 hrs
Don’t forget the government run pension scheme.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 0928 hrs
How can you deny that Obama is anything BUT suggesting massive socialist practices.
There isn’t a single issue in the current news cycle that they aren’t proposing government intervention/control of.
Healthcare, energy sources, mortgage crisis, big corporate profits, the current economic cycle.
All either candidate is talking about is how they would control these things with government.
if thats not socialistic what is?
socialism
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.Go to dictionary dot com and look it up.
If you think a little socialism is good for this country, why don’t you just come out and say it?
I disagree, but at least we could be having an honest conversation.
Stop fooling yourself. All these promises of government intervention into every aspect of our economy and our lives is the very definition of socialism.
And sure, if elected, I’m confident they wouldn’t run the CCCP flag up the pole and sieze all the assets of industry, but we are markedly moving closer and closer to government dominance of our marketplace.
You may think thats a good thing, I don’t, but how can you say we aren’t.
How can you compare the mass of regulation (both existing and proposed), and proposed intervention into the economy today as opposed to 20 years ago and not see that we have moved towards socialism?
Listen to the campaigns, Barack and Hillary have a government fix for EVERY issue that pops up on the news.
And they all involve the government taking control of something. Thats socialism folk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 1003 hrs
Obama is a socialist?
Huh?
Hows that civility policy working out for ya Owen?
BTW, when you opened with
It’s never good when someone who is running for president has to overtly affirm his patriotism.
I could of sworn you would be taking a swipe John McCain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 1328 hrs
Hows that civility policy working out for ya Owen?
What is your point Keith?
Noone is making a personal attack on a fellow blogger.
Its entirely within the realm of debate to characterize the man with terms that apply to his political actions/leanings.
If I were to say (for example) that you were a crybaby nincumpoop and a whiner, that would be a personal attack. Now I’m not saying that, I just use that as an example of what I believe Owen meant when he talked about civility in the blogosphere.
You and I can debate the merits of Obama’s socialist policy all day long and be civil about it.
When that debate deteriorates into me calling you names or you insulting me etc. That’s the loss of civility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 1538 hrs
McCain, for being not as conservative as I would like for a Republican candidate, is still a true patriot. No one that I know of has questioned his patriotism. You can tell he loves this country, what it stands for and it’s military. Those are three solid characteristics that put him head and shoulders above Obama and Clinton. The Democrats, and the current Presidential candidates hate the military. It is difficult for them to mask their contempt for our soldiers - look at how Bill Clinton as President weakened our military and turned his nose up at them. Did any soldiers during Clintons time respect the so-called “Commander in Chief”? No. His wife is the same, as is Obama. Sure, they try to hide it now - they have to. And why do Demcrats have to celebrate set-backs or negatives in the war on terror? Why the hateful grilling of General Patreaus by Clinton and Obama, trying to get him to explain what is needed to bring our troops home and how he can say we are having success? They want us to fail - pure and simple. How embarrasssing that two Presidential candidates can only hope for defeat and withdrawal and treat
the top General in the war on Iraq with contempt? What happened to hoping the United States wins and supporting our country and troops? The Democrats, CLinton and Obama are a disgrace. And don’t get me started on that useless windbag, Teddy Kennedy (who should still be in prison for murder….)Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 08, 2008 at 1650 hrs
Obama does not fit the definition of a Socialist. There are elements of socialism inherent in ever successful contemporary government. Please give me an example of a well functioning nation that is less socialist than the U.S. If you are looking for Socialists look up at Chavez or Castro. Reagan’s choice for Chief of the Federal Reserve is supporting Obama. Are you prepared to call him a socialist?
Characterizing Obama as a socialist is debasing the debate. If Owen did not intend to call out such debasement in his much needed call for civility he should have.
Anyone can play this silly game, but it is counter productive.
Republicans are fascists.
fas·cism (fshzm)n.
An authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement). Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 1742 hrs
To 3rd Way: The key word in your comment is “well functioning nation” that is less socialist than the United States. Huh? Last I looked, the United States is a a nation based on democracy - which is government by the people - and capitalism - an economic system characterized by private and corporate ownership capital goods and by prices, production and distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market. Socialist countries like the Soviet Union and the growing-socialist state of Venezuela sure cannot claim to be “well-functioning”, because socialism does not work. History and current news on either of those examples abounds.
And to say Republicans are facists is laughable. Fascism is based on the glorification of the state and the individual is not important. Everything is done for the benefit of the state. The fascist state is absolute in it’s methods and unlimited by law in it’s control and direction of its citizens. Kind of describes Hitler and Mussolini, doesn’t it?
What rights have you lost under President Bush? What legally can’t you do without fear of being hauled off to jail because of President Bush? Bush is not a fascist in any sense of the word - and for the left to keep spouting such nonsense only makes them look more idiotic than usual.Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 08, 2008 at 2010 hrs
Socialism is not related to democracy?
Those of us who know Milwaukee history know the city elected three socialist mayors, two of which did excellent jobs in office. One of these “godless” socialists was a devote Lutheran.
There is also an element about fascism that was missed in the above learned discussion by mu good friend Amy L. Geiger-Hammer, that being an tight connection between the government and corporations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 2024 hrs
Republicans are fascists.
Some probably are.
I’m not a republican. It matters not to me how you label them.
Obama does not fit the definition of a Socialist.
Perhaps you might support your statement with some type of fact? Some kind of justification?
I think most of his policies resemble socialism, and some of them, like his healthcare plan are the very definition of it.
So you can say that he does not fit the definition of socialist, but that seems.. well… unsupported to say the least.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 2101 hrs
Perhaps you might support your statement with some type of fact? Some kind of justification?
Sorry my esteemed colleague. Usually when someone levels the charge it is up to them to define crime.
With all due respect, it appears you are guessing as to the definition of socialist in Obama’s case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 2159 hrs
Obama supports social programs, as does Bush, McCain and every other leader of any major world power. This does not make him a socialist. A socialist would not put together an economic team that would convince a guy like Paul Volcker (Reagan’s fed chief) to endorse him.
This is from a far left blog that is critical of Obama for putting together an economic team that is too far to the right:Although it is not widely understood, Obama is pretty much committed to the neoclassical economics outlook of his home-town University of Chicago. Since becoming Senator, he has relied on the advice of a professor named Austan Goolsbee, who calls himself “a centrist, market economist” (Washington Times, July 16, 2007).
Goolsbee has been a columnist for Slate.com and the NY Times, as well as a standup comedian. His economics are not meant as a joke, as I understand it. His columns are written very much in the same vein as fellow U. of Chicago neoclassical economist Steven Levitt’s “Freakonomics,” examining everyday problems such as “Why you get stuck for hours at O’Hare.” Most are fairly uncontroversial except for the swipe he took at Michael Moore’s “Sicko”, whose single-payer recommendations violate his free market principles.
Another adviser with a particular interest in health care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist who was also an adviser to Bill Clinton–surprise, surprise. Cutler wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that “The rising cost … of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained.”
Another Harvard University adviser to Obama is Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard economist who co-authored a paper on the feasibility of privatizing social security when he was an adviser to Bill Clinton. Liebman has co-authored a book on social security “reform” with Martin Feldstein, another Harvard economist who was–appropriately enough–the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Ronald Reagan. In an article titled “The Rich, the Poor, and the Economists” that appeared in the January 2002 Monthly Review, Michael Yates notes the following:
Before he became Reagan’s chief economist, he [Feldstein] was an expert on the economics of social security. In published papers, he claimed to have empirically demonstrated that the social security system in the United States inhibited savings. Since savings are the source of capital investment, the implication of his research was that the social security system also reduced investment and thereby reduced the growth rate of the economy, since investment is the engine of economic growth.
Feldstein’s work fit nicely into the growing conservative movement which arose after the post World War Two boom came to an end in the early 1970s. The Keynesian economics that was gospel during my college years was giving way to a return to the pre-Keynesian theory that “freely” operating markets (free from the poison of government control and regulation) were the only solution to all economic problems.
The real self proclaimed socialists are even more critical of Obama. On the World Socialist Website they characterize Obama like this: “it should be clear, Obama was speaking not as a representative of the working class—a term he largely avoids in all his speeches—but as a bourgeois politician who seeks to win electoral support from working people, while demonstrating to the ruling elite that he can be relied on to keep the masses in check and prevent any fundamental challenge to the existing social order”.
Obama is no more a Marx-like socialist than your average Republican is a Mussolini-like fascist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 2248 hrs
What a partisan discussion we have here.
It seems that all have tendencies to support social programs because it is the Christian thing to do. Why do the extremely wealthy think that it is OK for them to not give back and that they should not help their fellow countrymen. They have plenty but some still defend the fact that they should be able to collect all the marbles in the game without sharing.
If our charitable organizations were overflowing with donations from these very wealthy (greedy?) people then the government would not have to look out for them. Our country has degenerated into a selfish and greedy lot that continues to blame the less fortunate for them not having more. Hardly a Christian value if you ask me.
How is it that the greedy capitalist conservatives seem to be the ones claiming the Christian religion as their mantra?
Not saying all conservatives are hypocritical but some on this blog need to search within themselves next time they claim religion as their guiding principle.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0500 hrs
Supporting government social programs is not the Christian thing to do. The most selfish, greediest lot of all are those socialists who would take from all and give to the government.
3rd way, Obama has in fact received socialist endorsements in the past. He has in fact proposed government run health care for all and he has in fact proposed a government run pension scheme.
We are a country founded on liberty. Our form of government was selected not as an end, but as a means to secure the blessings of liberty. Socialism is incompatible with liberty and should be called out as the authoritarian system that it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0747 hrs
He has in fact proposed government run health care for all
You are either ignorant of his health plan or lying.
Obama has in fact received socialist endorsements in the past.
From who, in what context?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0824 hrs
3rd Way: Obama has indeed proposed “Universal Health Care” for all - which translates into more government control over health care and individuals paying more, with less choice. One shining example is Canada - where it can take months to see a Doctor and many Canadians come to the United States for major surgeries. Wonder why… Could it be because socialized medicine doesn’t work?
You can continue to sugar-coat Obama and pretend he isn’t a socialist. However, all of his major ideas are socialist in nature. Perhaps we can agree that he is one of the most extremely liberal, far-left candidates for President we have ever had, if that makes you feel better.
Either way, Obama is dangerous to America and should not be President.Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 09, 2008 at 0836 hrs
Obama was endorsed by Chicago socialists in his 1996 state senate run. Just this year he in turn campaigned for a socialist in Vermont.
Obama has endorsed a government run health care plan and government run pensions. He believes in highly restrictive gun laws and that people aren’t being taxed enough. Yes he is a socialist and given his way would impose a more authoritarian form of government on the country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0850 hrs
It seems that all have tendencies to support social programs because it is the Christian thing to do. Why do the extremely wealthy think that it is OK for them to not give back and that they should not help their fellow countrymen. They have plenty but some still defend the fact that they should be able to collect all the marbles in the game without sharing.
You are making things up.
It is a documented fact that the wealthiest of the wealthy are by far the largest charitable contributors.
IN ADDITION i might point out that the wealthiest of wealthy ALREADY fund the biggest charity in this country, and that is the requisite charity of taxes.
When someone has already paid millions in income taxes, the lions share of which fund ‘social’ spending and entitlements, I think it demonstrates an exceptional giving heart for these same people to give even more after tax dollars to other charities. On top of the millions the government “charity” has already taken for social programs.
I am by no means even close to the wealthiest of wealthy, but I do pretty well and I pay more in taxes then most people earn in a year. And I still give to my favorite charities and volunteer my time with an organization here in Milwaukee.
If you ask me, the most selfish of people are those who, as BV has pointed out, want the government to provide things, and tax SOMEONE ELSE to fund them.
I mean how does this figure?
The more you make the more you pay in taxes (not just in $ amount but as a growing percent of your income) This money by and large funds social spending from the government. These same people who are in the highest tax brackets also provide the largest charitable contributions.
Then you have and individual. Lets call him Joe Liberal who sees a need (whether its his own need or a need of someone else). And his solution is to vote for a politician who promises to fix that need with government, and get the money for government to fix it from the wealthy. And in the meantime, Joe Liberal gets something for nothing. And the problems that Joe Liberal thinks need fixing, get taxpayers money (most of which comes from the wealthy, not Joe Liberal) thrown at them.
Who’s selfish here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0936 hrs
I couldn’t agree with xxpilot more! Well-stated.
My husband and I are middle-class, live within our means and also volunteer and give to charity. We are also fed up with the high taxes we pay - we live in a tax hell here in Wisconsin. We have a Governor who lied to get re-elected, by promising no more taxes. Once back in office, Governor Doyle wants to - guess what - raise taxes and fees. More of the same…..
Every solution Democrats and liberals have to any problem is: Raise taxes!!! How about thinking outside the box for a change?
Obama and Clinton will bring more of the same. McCain may or may not - it’s too bad he is not a true conservative, so voters would really have a choice come November. But McCain is still a better choice than either of the anti-American lefties being touted by the Democrats…Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 09, 2008 at 1102 hrs
Our country has degenerated into a selfish and greedy lot that continues to blame the less fortunate for them not having more. Hardly a Christian value if you ask me.
Our country has degenerated into an envious society, where those who don’t consider themselves ‘rich’ think that they are just ‘unlucky’ and that they are entitled to have things given to them for nothing paid for by the ‘rich’.
The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.
So the top 25 percent of taxpayers paid 84 percent of the federal income taxes… And we know that most of these taxes fund social spending. You’re calling these people greedy and selfish? You aren’t serious?
You want them to pay more? Who’s greedy here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1107 hrs
It’s never good when someone who is running for president has to overtly affirm his patriotism.
Seems like all three are doing that?
either of the anti-American lefties being touted by the Democrats…
You don’t like their approach to public policy, I get that.
But anti-American?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1148 hrs
Clinton and Obama are both anti-American. They hate the military. They want us to lose the war in Iraq and have demonstrated such by wanting to pull out the troops before the mission is done. They have shown disrespect to the office of the President and the way they talk about President Bush. No matter what political party you are, he is still the President and commands respect.
They hate big business - especially successful big business. They want the government to intrude more and more on peoples lives, going against the very foundation that this country was founded on. Obama’s own wife has said she was “ashamed of this country” - of course, till her hubby decided to run for office….
Obama refusing to wear a flag lapel pin speaks volumes.
Need I continue?Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 09, 2008 at 1211 hrs
They hate the military.
Some proof other than your opinion would be nice?
They have shown disrespect to the office of the President and the way they talk about President Bush. No matter what political party you are, he is still the President and commands respect.
Yet you show no respect for any of the three candidates? One of whom lived in the White House as First Lady?
They hate big business - especially successful big business.
Based on their tax returns, the Clintons are a relatively large business.
Need I continue?
Please.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1222 hrs
I don’t think democrats hate the military.
I think they hate not being in control of it.
Remember Ron Silver complaining about the flyover at the clinton inauguration and being told “Those are our jets now”.
He is still the President and commands respect.
He’s just a man. No different than any other. He gets up in the morning and puts his pants on one leg at a time like any other.
I afford him, nor anyone else any more, nor less respect because of a job title.
People don’t command my respect because of a job title. They earn it or lose it by their actions, their principles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1245 hrs
Pir: This is getting old, but here goes: Obama and Clinton hate the military. This is shown by their lack of support for our troops currently waging a war against terrorism. What kind of support is it to want withdrawal with defeat? Why do they persist in celebrating set-backs in Iraq? Why are they more concerned with terrorists rights than the treatment of our own fighting men and women?
The Bill and Hillary years had the Clintons slicing the military budget to the bare bones. They had no interest in the military and showed their disdain with their actions. Do you think any soldiers during the Clinton years respected Clinton? There were many who wished to not have to salute him, but they had to - because he was the President and deserved respect. There were articles written about this during the Clinton years. I have a relative who was a soldier during Clinton’s time and I cannot print the words he chose to describe how he and fellow soldiers felt about the Clintons.
As for big business - Clinton and Obama have targeted big business for massive tax increases should they get elected. They have outwordly expressed hatred for the likes of Wal-Mart (even tho Hillary at one time was on the board). If you work hard, are successful, and have a good company - watch out - Democrats will want to penalize you and take away whatever profit you may earn!!!! In Obama and Clinton’s world - Profit is bad - giving more of your hard-earned money to the government if good!Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 09, 2008 at 1252 hrs
This is shown by their lack of support for our troops currently waging a war against terrorism. What kind of support is it to want withdrawal with defeat?
Would you like establish a definition of defeat or victory in Iraq?
Why do they persist in celebrating set-backs in Iraq?
The press must not have covered these gala events. Please fill me in?
Why are they more concerned with terrorists rights than the treatment of our own fighting men and women?
You have got me on that one, could you provide a reference that will enlighten me?
The Bill and Hillary years had the Clintons slicing the military budget to the bare bones.
You might want to take a look at this.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883084.html
You can do the math?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1423 hrs
Defeat in Iraq means pulling our troops out with our tails between our legs and heading home, leaving Iraq to disintegrate into chaos (much like Clinton did in regards to Somolia).
Victory in Iraq means establishing a democracy that upholds the law, respects the rights of its people and provides them with security. It also means Iraq becomes an ally with the United States in the war on terror. Right now, victories are coming in small gains with the troop surge working to defeat insurgents.
Other victories in Iraq have included: overturning the government of Saddam Hussein. The capture of Saddam Hussein. The killing and captures of most al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The suppression of the violent Shiite militias.
We are working to help rebuild Iraq as a representative government from the bottom up. Things like this do not happen overnight. President Bush and others like General Patreaus recognize this fact. Democrats like Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Feingold and others do not understand this.
And what party did most of the crying about the horrid conditions at Guantanamo? Let’s ignore the fact that prisoners (terrorists who wish to see us dead) at Club Gitmo get three meals a day - and the food is specifically prepared to religious order, towards what their religious order, each is furnished with a Koran. A/C is available, but horrors it was too cold for some prisoners - what torture! And who kept beating the drum on this one? Democrats. Who always points out when a very small percentage of American soldiers may accidentally kill innocent civilians or behave in a manner not suitable for an American soldier? They are persecuted by Democrats and the American media - over and over. Yet no complaints about terrorists beheading people on TV or how they might treat American prisoners…..Bill Clinton scrapped $10 billion out of the military after he became President from the previous year of the first President Bush. He scrapped most of the funding for Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. The number of military bases closed during Clinton’s years was the highest in a long time. Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said of Clinton’s last year in office that the military under Clinton lost air and sea lift capability as well as experienced huge cuts in military R & D. He also stated Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight the war on terror on several fronts.
The second President Bush, once elected, set about to undo what damage Clinton had done. He has been very successful on re-building our military.Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 09, 2008 at 1707 hrs
Mrs./Ms. Geiger-Hemmer you either process current events while spinning around in a chair or you have a spin cycle built into your brain.
You are writing some ridiculous things. Going through and pointing out the ridiculousness is an act of futility. Several people have tried to set you straight, but you keep spitting out more.
I don’t think you are capable of processessing anything that the Republicans did wrong or the Democrats did right. You are spinning everything to fit your alternative reality. I just want to let you know that here in the real world there is no single ideology or political party that is infallible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1755 hrs
3rd Way: You have sunk to a new low. So typical of liberals to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. The truth hurts.
Signing off, I’m tired of this blog.Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on April 09, 2008 at 1843 hrs
I believe socialism goes both ways here. Didnt the government bail out bears and Sterns with our tax money? Arent we giving huge tax breaks to the oil companies and corporate farms? Are we not giving larger tax breaks for investment than for actual work? Maybe this is not socialism, but it is corporate welfare, and I do not like it one bit. I am a conservative, I am pissed that the Government is helping out these investment firms, who just in December were giving million dollar bonuses out.
I do not agree with most of Obama’s policies and would never vote for him. But lets be honest here, we should not be too happy with the Republicans either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1852 hrs
Victory in Iraq means establishing a democracy that upholds the law, respects the rights of its people and provides them with security.
So that means forever, right. Do you know much about that part of the world?
Bill Clinton scrapped $10 billion out of the military after he became President from the previous year of the first President Bush.
3.3%
The second President Bush, once elected, set about to undo what damage Clinton had done.
2000 311.7
2001 $307.8Must have got off to a slow start huh?
Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said of Clinton’s last year in office that the military under Clinton lost air and sea lift capability as well as experienced huge cuts in military R & D.
A reference for the money quote?
And I saved the best for last.
And what party did most of the crying about the horrid conditions at Guantanamo?
John McCain, “The first day I am President of the
United States I will close Guantanamo Bay..”You should enjoy this in that you are such a strong supporter of his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Co7x3A12s
Please continue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1902 hrs
She can throw out an endless stream of baseless rhetoric, but I am the one sinking to a new low for calling her on it?
I thought she saved the best for last.
He has been very successful on re-building our military.
How on Earth can anyone say that Bush is leaving our military in better shape than he found it? Our forces are stretched dangerously thin, recruiting is becoming more and more difficult, our stockpile of military equipment needs to be replaced, soldiers are committing suicide at record levels, young officers are abandoning their military careers and now Patraeus told congress today that the surge really isn’t a surge but a troop increase that should continue beyond it’s original timetable.
Yeah, real successful at rebuilding our military.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 2013 hrs
Arent we giving huge tax breaks to the oil companies
After watching some of Obama’s commercials a while back, I posed this question and didnt’ get a response. Could very well have been a dead thread, but I’ll pose it again.
I hear Obama saying we give “huge tax breaks to oil companies” and I would really like to know (specifically) just exactly what tax breaks oil companies are getting? (cause if they are I’ll certainly be against them) but I have yet to hear something specific.
I have also heard Obama say “I’m going to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas” And I’d like to know just exactly what tax breaks do we give companies that ship jobs overseas? Because if we have legislation that GIVES tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas that is completely different than if companies ship jobs overseas to avoid the tax-hell of this country.
I suspect its the latter and Obama spins it to his woefully uniformed audience who sucks up whatever pastor Obama preaches and doesn’t critically evaluate or fact check what he says.
But lets be honest here, we should not be too happy with the Republicans either.
agreed 100%
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 2157 hrs
Come on 3rd what credibility can these guys have compared to Geiger-Hemmer?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-27-pace-military_x.htm
Clearly theirs is a lefty Anti-American perspective.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0528 hrs
I would really like to know (specifically) just exactly what tax breaks oil companies are getting?
Here’s a couple of links on oil;
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/12/22/an-oil-royalty-mystery/
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066
And offshoring,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d065.pdf
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1683,filter.all/event_detail.asp
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0600 hrs
Nice, pjr, but the links you provided on offshoring do not speak of tax breaks provided by the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0831 hrs
I hear Obama saying we give “huge tax breaks to oil companies” and I would really like to know (specifically) just exactly what tax breaks oil companies are getting?
I have also heard Obama say “I’m going to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas” And I’d like to know just exactly what tax breaks do we give companies that ship jobs overseas?
Eventhough I hate doing peoples research for them. Here you go…
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_breaks_does_the.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0904 hrs
Precisely, 3rd way. There is no tax break for shipping jobs overseas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0916 hrs
Having issues with reading comprehension this morning BBB?
There is a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.”
Obama is saying there shouldn’t ba an incentive for corporations to move overseas. Do you disagree with that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0950 hrs
Eventhough I hate doing peoples research for them. Here you go…
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_ breaks_does_the.html
Wow, thats awesome… Not only did 3rd way do my research for me but he made my point also.
As that link shows, and as i suspected, the truth is these candidates are both just demagoging the issue.
And they get away with it because their constituents either don’t know or don’t care about the truth, they just listen to whatever the man on the podium says.
Dangerous. Very dangerous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0950 hrs
Obama is saying there shouldn’t ba an incentive for corporations to move overseas. Do you disagree with that?
Well if I had magic wand I’d make it so there wasn’t an incentive to move overseas too, but the picture is vastly different than he paints it to be.
Its different to say “companies move jobs overseas because tax rates everywhere else are lower than the united states”
Than what Obama says “I’m going to end tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas”
He’s demagoging and you know it. Making impassioned appeals that don’t portray the real problem, merely leverage peoples prejudices and emotions to NOT think and vote for him on the wave of a big lie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1003 hrs
Fact Check acts as a rebuttal to campaign claims.
There is an argument that the tax breaks for oil companies and repatriated income aren’t as big a problem as the democrats make them out to be, but the tax breaks are there and they shouldn’t be.
Do you guys support these tax breaks?
The fact check synopsis doesn’t tell the entire story.
There are additional tax breaks related to some manufacturing credit that all manufacturers get. I believe they are also talking about a targeted repeal of this credit to certain corporations that don’t deserve it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1010 hrs
3rd way, if you realize the income, you are taxed. Are you saying companies should be taxed on income they haven’t realized? Unrepatriated income is income that has not been earned in this country, and therefore not subject to taxes until it enters the country, nor is it usable to the company in question. It is not a break unless you feel the IRS should also be charging you for income you have neither earned nor received.
Having trouble with reading comprehension this morning?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1034 hrs
By leaving their income offshore their income goes untaxed and allows companies to pay for cheaper labor than they can find here. How is that fair to the taxpayers or the American job market?
You guys persistently bitch and moan for the simplification of our tax code (as do I), but when a democrat calls for simplification and elimination of a loophole to create a more fair market you want to turn your back on it. Heckuva job fellas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1103 hrs
There is something that needs to be said here. Something liberals, democrats, anti-capitalists, socialists, and swing voters who just “don’t get it” need to hear.
The truth is companies are in the business of profit. Companies (large and small) and businessmen have learned how to view a marketplace, adapt to it, adjust to it, and make a profit from it. The go where the ‘best opportunity’ lies. They make the best (or attempt to) of every situation they face. Successful companies do.
There is nothing. NOTHING you can do that will keep companies from moving and adapting to the parameters in play.
When government changes the rules, companies adjust. Tax them more, they will just increase their prices and pass on those taxes to the consumer. In the end, the net gain to the consumer will be nothing.
Change the law so unrepatriated money gets taxed, and companies will simply move their ENTIRE operations overseas so that the U.S. Government has NO ability to take their money anymore. Companies will change, companies will adjust. Its all about change and adjusting and companies know how to do this or they wouldn’t be in business. In the end, the consumers and the labor force in the US will lose.
There is just no way around this my friends. You can hate companies all you want. You can ridicule profit all you want. You can play on peoples emotions about what ‘should’ be, and demagogue the hell out of the issues but in the end, companies will go where they can be most profitable. Companies will do what makes BUSINESS sense. You hate that… We get it… But you can’t change that. Even if you went so far as to have the government sieze the assets of companies to try to force them to play within the rules set by government, those companies would just close and restart elsewhere.
At some point, the kid who owns the little red ball is going to take it and go find someplace else to play when he thinks the kids he’s playing with aren’t playing fair.
Again, you hate this, and you think its the companies that aren’t playing fair, but that’s a moot point. Its their “little red ball” so to speak and when it comes right down the the very core of it. They will take it and go elsewhere. And the little red ball may be a company or it may just be an idea in someones head. But those who “have” something, wether it be the will to work, the skill to work, the motivation to work, or the capital to build something, the capital to start a company, whatever. Those ‘with’ will always be able to adjust. And as I say, the ‘with’ doesn’t have to be money, it could be knowledge, a skill, whatever.
The reality is that as much as you hate it, “enterprise” will flow to areas where freedom exists. The freedom to operate and make a profit. The more people feel like the fruits of their labor are being taken from them unfairly, they just have more incentive to go elsewhere.
The United States has become the wealth of the world for one reason… Because our country offered to people who wanted to work and acheive. It offered to those who were motivated the opportunity to forge ahead. Whether as a worker, owner, whatever. The U.S. was the land of opportunity for the past several hundred years. More-so than anywhere else in the world, this was the place where you could go and BY YOUR OWN FRUITION become something.
It was not the place with a safety net for everyone. Not the place where ‘the system’ would save you (or anyone else who didn’t want to support themselves)
Over the years the land of opportunity turned into the land of regulation. The land of taxes on labor. The land of entitlements for so many paid for by the taxes of so few (see my above post about 25% of taxpayers paying 84% of income taxes) What do you think is going to happen? When so many live off of that provided by so few?
So now in a global world we do have change. The portability of products, services, information. Companies aren’t “stuck” in any one area anymore.
There is no way around this. And as much as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would like to promote the big lie that government can provide. I’ve got news for their constituents. IT CANNOT.
You see it now. You see the jobs moving. You see companies adjusting. Raise taxes, that’s just going to be passed back on to consumers. Put regulations in place that hurt companies and companies will move. Its just as simple as that. You hate it, but ultimately its not government that makes things happen. Its not government that controls anything. Its those ‘with’ something that do.
So you’d better stop waiting for government to help you because they can’t. Long term, companies will adjust, companies will pass on taxes to consumers, companies will make their profit… Why… because that’s what they do.
(continued below)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1103 hrs
(cont. from above)
Capitalism may suck to a lot of you, but unfortunately its the only way. And capitalism doesn’t mean everyone gets something, but it does mean that everyone who would put forth the effort would get something.
You want to fix america, make it free-er. You want to help the low man on the totem pole, make this country free-er.
Business will come, businesses will grow, consumers will have more opportunity.
Those without can more easily become a ‘with’. I know it sucks. I know its scary that people are going to be more responsible for their own successes and failures. But its the only way. Levy a tax, companies will find a loophole. Close the loophole and companies pick up and look for greener pastures.
Its time to make America a greener pasture. When our country and our economy stop growing because the greenest pastures lie else where, it becomes a zero sum game. We’ll be left to fight over ‘whats left’ when opportunity has moved on. Its time for people to understand that if you want something, you have to be willing to get it yourself. YOU CANNOT GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. No matter what Hillary or Barack promise you, long-term, you’re going to get screwed. Other parts of the world are looking pretty damn good to enterprising people right now. You can’t fix that problem with more taxes, more entitlements and more regulation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1104 hrs
By leaving their money offshore it goes untaxed…
No, it doesn’t. Companies in other countries have to pay that countries taxes and vice versa. If a US company then brings that income into the USA it gets taxed yet again. The only way you avoid paying US taxes is to perpetually both earn that income overseas and keep it overseas.
A company wishing to move jobs overseas will both face a foreign tax and will not be able to bring that income back to the US without paying US taxes. They get no break. There is a very large tax disincentive to move jobs overseas and to bring jobs back into the US from overseas.
This is reason that the US has floated and enacted various schemes to get companies to bring foreign income back into the USA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1115 hrs
BBB sorry about the bad link for AEI to many tabs it was the USAToday piece below that was meant to be there, the GAO report was meant as a background piece, not to make any particular point,
A company wishing to move jobs overseas will both face a foreign tax and will not be able to bring that income back to the US without paying US taxes. They get no break.
Not exactly right.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/may07/07-05-02.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm
The Schlafly article does a good job of summing it up.
I would add that this is just Ricardo’s comparative advantage at work and there is little we can do about it.
Unless of course xxp, yourself and 20 million or so of your friends want to go to work for 30 cents an hour.
Now how does this relate to Obama being Anti-American?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1401 hrs
BBB you can try to spin it anyway you want, but there is an incentive for corporations to move operations off shore. That incentive should be removed. Arguing that it shouldn’t is not going to win any election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1423 hrs
The incentive to move jobs overseas are two: lower wages, and an overseas market. It isn’t desirable to remove either of those incentives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1427 hrs
Schlafly’s article contains some circular reasoning in that avoiding the import tax is a large encouragement to producers to locate their facilities in the country of the end market, and also contains the huge assumption that the reason for locating overseas is to ship back to the US when the greatest reason is because that is where the product is being sold. You may get a VAT removed, but you get a US tariff added when you locate overseas. That is why when the US has enacted various schemes to try to pull back foreign income, most companies have simply said no thanks. Schlafly also ignores the fact that you do get charged corporate taxes overseas.
The second article ignores the fact that the company is ultimately being double taxed on the income. The argument that companies are deferring taxes is really an argument that we should double tax the income and do so immediately.
The single biggest practical problem behind trying to change this is that other countries would immediately retaliate, and we would see a withdrawal of foreign investment in this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1444 hrs
Schlafly also ignores the fact that you do get charged corporate taxes overseas.
No She addresses it.
(d) they don’t have to pay foreign taxes when they export their products back to us.
The argument that companies are deferring taxes is really an argument that we should double tax the income and do so immediately.
How so?
Most economic arguments are circular. There is no free lunch!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1456 hrs
Yes, they do have to pay corporate taxes. Countries charge corporate taxes, and not all countries are the same.
The VAT is essentially a replacement for sales taxes and tariffs. It is not a replacement for corporate income taxes which most countries do in fact charge and charge in addition to VAT taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1515 hrs
there is an incentive for corporations to move operations off shore.
Yep, actually incentives, and being rational actors they do.
As the cost of transportation increases it will be interesting to see how that plays out as part of the metrics.
It might become,
a large encouragement to producers to locate their facilities in the country of the end market,
Seems like there was a disconnect on the difference(?) between a tax break and tax incentive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Yes, they do have to pay corporate taxes. Countries charge corporate taxes, and not all countries are the same.
Yep.
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/chi_econonews.asp
And here is something interesting from last year.
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. briefed Bush yesterday morning on various possibilities for overhauling a corporate tax structure that he considers disadvantageous for U.S. business. A paper Paulson released last month said the corporate tax rate could be reduced from 35 percent to 27 percent by scrapping the research-and-development tax credit, a deduction for domestic production, breaks for interest on state and local bonds, and other special tax breaks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802468.html
Hmmm…creating tax incentives for domestic production.
Where have I heard that before?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1535 hrs
No pjr, not a US incentive, and unrelated to US taxes. You, Obama and the country can do nothing to change VATs and tariffs other than to argue for no tariffs at all. Of course, the Democratic party is in the midst of a protectionist phase and is currently engaged in doing precisely the opposite as witnessed by the latest Columbian trade fiasco.
The VAT, and any tariff encourages production in the country of final use. Companies still, however, pay income taxes. And US history has shown that those taxes are not a big reason companies locate overseas. Read your own link in comment 48.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1537 hrs
You, Obama and
And Secretary Paulson. So maybe not just Democratic thing.
the Democratic party is in the midst of a protectionist phase and is currently engaged in doing precisely the opposite as witnessed by the latest Columbian trade fiasco.
I’m sure Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan will be pleased to hear they have become Democrats.
So BBB are you for free markets and trade or not?
That means no incentives, breaks, tariffs, deductions or any other mumbo jumbo that is government intervention?
If you are we are on the same page, why do you think we are not.?
Because I take umbrage with someone calling Obama, Hillary or McCain anti or un American just because they have differing public policy perspectives on how to get from point a to point b.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1552 hrs
I am for free trade. That free trade, however, will result in lowering corporate taxes and elimiating penalties, not eliminating a supposed “break”.
For the record I have never called any of the above people anti-american beyond general statements that socialism is anti-liberty, and as much as the country was founded on liberty, socialism is anti-american.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1559 hrs
That free trade, however, will result in lowering corporate taxes and elimiating penalties, not eliminating a supposed “break”.
So where would the revenue to replace it come from?
Unless you think that either the Republicans or Democrats are willing to absorb cuts to the prograams they favor and give up part of their slice of the pie?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1631 hrs
I don’t view the supposed exodus as a big problem, pjr, so I have no particular ax to grind. I just don’t like talk of a “break” going unchallenged when in fact no such thing exists.
I would argue against all corporate taxes and for a flat tax on people as I have in the past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1650 hrs
No question that a truly flat tax for individuals with no avenues for deviating from the flat part (ie; same % on all income & net gains, no exceptions) is equitable and defensible.
Count me in.
No corporate taxes?
To paraphrase one of the sound bites from our early beginnings;
No Taxation, No Representation.
No Business related/based lobbying of elected and nonelected government officials.
No voice or influence in the electoral process. That includes any groups that would fall into any 5?? organizational class
No subsidization of commercially driven infrastructure costs. Transportation comes to mind.
No recourse or standing in any government financed judiciary system. Forget the corporate veil.
Just a few things off the top of my head.
No corporate taxation still sound good to you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 1857 hrs
Corporations should have standing, it’s an advantage to all parties involved. Transportation has been subsidized in large part due to military concerns, so there are going to be some effective subsidies to transportation. Beyond that, together with unions I have no problem getting corporations out of the electoral process. Your politicians, however, have long since been bought and sold.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 2031 hrs
Corporations should have standing, it’s an advantage to all parties involved.
How so?
If a corporation employs some bad faith actors let them defend themselves, individually, first.
Then if the individuals are found negligent or guilty the corporation can pay a fee (just for yucks,# of employees x per capita cost) on an ala carte basis to argue why they should not be held liable for the actions of their employees.
Transportation has been subsidized in large part due to military concerns, so there are going to be some effective subsidies to transportation.
That may have been a good argument in the 1950’s.
Who would be crazy or stupid enough to invade us? We are a pretty unruly bunch.
I am having a hard time picturing the need for tank columns moving along I-94 between Milwaukee & Chicago to take on a couple of suicide bombers.
Your politicians, however, have long since been bought and sold.
Unless you don’t live in the US, they are OUR politicians.
With to few exceptions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 11, 2008 at 0038 hrs
Out of “love of our country” we have had quite the lesson in economics and free trade agreements. I want to commend the two sides for actually having a heated yet civil conversation (except for Amy L. G-H). I missed most of this but didn’t realize it was going to explode into a marathon thread.
We should not doubt the love that our candidates have for the country on either side. They all love their country and those that imply any of them hate the U.S.A. should be ashamed. They have all dedicated a considerable share of their lives to helping others and we should all give them that respect. The policy differences are fair game but don’t doubt that they love the country. That game is old and counter productive to the future of our country.
It is hard to explain why our economy is in the tank but even the low wage rural areas are losing jobs to Mexico and other countries. It is no doubt driven by profit but at what point do we stop giving the breaks to businesses and let the hard working people catch a break. The country has turned completely around in where it draws its taxes from. Businesses were still able to grow when they were paying the larger share of taxes. In the past the home-owners paid 30% of total taxes and businesses paid 70%. Now it is the other way around and the average working family is being squeezed yet all new tax breaks go to businesses.
If we are going to continue to support this war in Iraq we need to pay for it. We should be ashamed to put these bills onto our children and grandchildren. Whether it is the war or other programs like social security, health care, infrastructure improvements etc., we need to pay for it or go without. The biggest waste going is the war right now, think of how that money could solve our problems here at home and still protect us from terrorists while our troops remain on U.S soil. The rebuilding of Iraq on our credit card is the worst policy that anyone has ever pulled over on the American people. We need to take care of our own before we try to save the world with borrowed money.
I realize some of you will disagree with much of this but lets start to put out solutions instead of creating more smoke and mirrors, fear and division.
When will this country be United again?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 11, 2008 at 0117 hrs
Suppose you had a legal issue with a corporation, pjr. Would you want to be able to deal with a single entity, or would you want to have to go after everyone with ownership or control individually?
Among other things, the design criteria for roadways involves military concerns. The interstate highway system, which carries virtually all of your cross country trucking was also designed to handle military traffic and thus proved a big boon to the trucking industry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 11, 2008 at 0817 hrs
Transportation is the easy one.
BBB,
was also designed to handle military traffic
“Was” is the operational word for me. That time is gone.
What scenario do you envision that would require large scale military deployment by land across the continental US?
Why should the general public subsidize truck traffic? Railroads maintain their own infrastructure and right of way.
Yes Michael I know you pay a lot but it is short of the actual cost for wear and tear and scale needed for heavy trucks.
I have seen multiples as high as 10kx for a truck in comparison to a car. Let’s say it is half that.
Seems the licensing fee you mentioned pays about half of that. Was it $2500 +/_?
About 34x what it is going to cost me to register my car.
Then there is the other aspect of things like the interchanges for Pabst Farms or the Kohler golf stuff.
Why should someone, say living in Superior, subsidize this?
Both private commercially driven needs.
I don’t perceive them as common goods by any stretch of the definition. Do you?
To fully flesh out the legal stuff would mean actually writing out a legislation size document but here are the main points i am trying to make. Anybody with more expertise on this please jump in if you like.
In the hypothetical me versus the Fortune 500 doesn’t most of these suits emanate from operations rather than ownership?
So you have to discover who screwed up and why anyway. That personal responsibility thing, no more corporate veil avoidance of personal liability stuff.
Take this whole subprime/Bear Stearns BS, If the individuals who made the decisions that brought this situation about would have to give up their personal assets would it have happened. I don’t know maybe, maybe not.
I am guessing that it would have encouraged them to be a little more prudent.
I am not suggesting that a corporation’s owner’s, BOD or whoever has the oversight responsibility for it shouldn’t be held liable collectively(corporate assets) and individually (their own assets), I just would not start there.
As far as access to commonly paid for goods, like the court system, what I am saying is if they don’t help pay for it through the general collection of tax revenue then they should pay a steep user fee from an ala carte menu.
Yep, I know it’s they are pretty rough sketches but I hope you get my drift.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 11, 2008 at 1238 hrs
No, the time for war is not gone, unless you believe the country should not maintain the ability to defend itself or transport its’ equipment cross country. The military routinely makes large scale deployments across the country by land. The railroads received large land grants to finance them originally.
Who’s Michael?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 11, 2008 at 1330 hrs
No, I don’t believe that we should not defend ourselves.
I’ll go along with the Defense Departments perception of our needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Highway_Network
I couldn’t help but notice that the only section of WI roadway is from Fort McCoy to Green Bay. 2/3 (a little over 100 miles) of which is STH 21 which is a 2 lane road.
While I am not sure of the comparative value of it in a contemporary discussion of an equitable distribution of costs for roads today I did a little homework on RR land grants.
The first link is a good overview by what seems to be a railroad buff. The second is a real stitch from 1870
http://www.coxrail.com/land-grants.htm
So basically my position is pretty much unchanged.
User fees should pay for roadways.
No more borrowing paid off through the general fund other than the funds that have already been guaranteed as part of the deal between the gov and legislature for the recent transfers.
If they want to expand I94 from the state line to Milwaukee make it a toll road.
I would like to see the state make a real effort to maintain the roads we already have.
I’m sure you noticed some of the potholes that developed this winter. And I43 south to Beloit is down to the aggregate in many places.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 12, 2008 at 2232 hrs
Total Entries: 19642
Total Comments: 129729
Most Recent Entry: 02/07/2012 09:25 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 12:13 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 126
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 12:21 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).